The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPR 21-0399 FEIRFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH No. 2022080337 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 Lead Agency City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Attn: Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 Project Applicant SASD Development Group, LLC 4895 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 Lead Agency Discretionary Permits Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 Final EIR August 28, 2023 Veterans Affair Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page F.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... F-1 F.2 Responses to DEIR Comments .......................................................................... F-1 F.2.2 CEQA Requirements ........................................................................................ F-2 F.2.3 Responses to DEIR Comments .......................................................................... F-3 A San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ................................................. F-4 B Kern County Public Works ............................................................................. F-15 C Channel Law Group, LLP ................................................................................ F-17 D Channel Law Group, LLP on Behalf of Progress for Bakersfield Veterans ............ F-21 E California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................... F-143 F.3 Additions, Corrections, and Revisions to the DEIR .......................................... F-151 F.4 No Recirculation of DEIR Required ................................................................ F-153 Changed Pages of the Draft EIR Resource Material Supporting the FEIR Attachment A: Excerpts from the Government Solicitation for the VA Clinic Attachment B: ISR Application Attachment C: VA Clinic Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) Attachment D: ALTA Survey Attachment E: Bakersfield Fire Department and Police Department Letters Attachment F: USFWS Section 7.0 Consultation Letter Attachment G: SHPO Letter Attachment H: Biological Resources Response to Comments and Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Results Letter Attachment I: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Attachment J: Additional Factual Background from Project Applicant Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-1 F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of: a. The Draft EIR (DEIR) or a revision of the draft; b. Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In accordance with the above-listed requirements, this FEIR for the Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project (hereafter, the “Project”) and associated discretionary and administrative actions, consists of the following: a. Comment letters and responses to public comment; and b. The circulated Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project DEIR and Technical Appendices, SCH No. 20220801337, with revised pages indicating additions shown as underlined text and deletions shown as stricken text. Refer to Subsection F.3, Additions, Corrections, and Revisions to the Draft EIR, for a summary of the changes to the EIR since the DEIR was circulated for public review. This FEIR document was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the CEQA Lead Agency (City of Bakersfield). F.2 RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS The City of Bakersfield received five (5) comment letters in response to the DEIR. A list of the agencies, organizations, and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR is presented in Table F-1, Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the DEIR. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-2 Table F-1 Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the DEIR Comment Letter Commenting Party Date A San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District June 15, 2023 B Kern County Public Works June 20, 2023 C Channel Law Group, LLP June 14, 2023 D Channel Law Group, LLP on Behalf of Progress for Bakersfield Veterans June 20, 2023 E California Department of Fish and Wildlife June 30, 2023 F.2.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the Lead Agency (City of Bakersfield) to evaluate comments received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and to provide written responses with good faith and reasoned analysis to comments that relate to significant environmental issues. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), comments should be related to: [T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].” Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment: “A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-3 contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” F.2.3 RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS Copies of each of the comment letters referenced in Table F-1 are provided on the following pages, followed by responses to each individual comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation when “significant” new information is added to an EIR, meaning the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to avoid such an effect, including a feasible project alternative, that the applicant declines to implement. “Significant” new information requiring recirculation includes (1) a new significant environmental impact; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the applicant declines to adopt it; or (4) a fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; see also, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California [1993] 6 Cal. 4th 1112). None of the responses to the comment letters submitted to the City required the addition of significant new information to the DEIR or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Instead, these responses to comments supplement the draft EIR’s analysis of the same potentially significant impacts already disclosed therein. Therefore, recirculation is not required. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-4 Comment Letter A A-1 A-2 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-5 Comment Letter A A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-6 Comment Letter A A-7 A-6(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-7 Comment Letter A A-8 A-9 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-8 Comment Letter A A-10 A-11 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-9 Comment Letter A A-12 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-10 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER A: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District A-1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) provides an accurate, brief Project summary. This general comment is acknowledged. A-2 The District reiterates the DEIR’s conclusion under Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, Threshold b, pp. 4.2- 20 to 4.2-22, without disagreement, that the Project’s construction and operational activities would not exceed any of the significance thresholds identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The District recommends that the cleanest available off-road construction equipment be used during the Project’s construction. This recommendation is already included in the DEIR as Mitigation Measure GHG MM-1, which requires that construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower achieve or is equivalent to or better than EPA/CARB Tier 4 emissions standards, or Tier 3 standards if Tier 4 equipment is not available at the time of construction. Also, Mitigation Measure GHG MM-2 requires that construction contractors use electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers. A-3 The District suggests that the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to reduce air pollution exposure on nearby residential and school sensitive receptors. The City appreciates this suggestion and the Project is already designed to include an ample amount of landscaping. As stated in DEIR Subsection 3.0, Project Description, p. 3-6, and shown on DEIR Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and on detailed landscape plans on file with the City as part of the Project’s application materials, the Project’s landscaping plan includes trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and accent plants. A mix of shade trees, palm trees, small evergreens trees, screen trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be planted along the perimeter of the Project site. Landscaping, featuring shade trees, small evergreen trees, accent trees, shrubs, perennials, groundcover, and irrigated turf, would also occur at the building entries and around the perimeter of the building. A healing garden is proposed on the northeast side of the building which would include garden paths, benches, screen trees, shade trees, accent trees, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigated turf. A-4 The District recommends that the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machine Program that provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas-powered lawn and garden equipment with electric equipment. The City appreciates this recommendation and has advised the Project applicant about this voluntary incentive program offered by the District. California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 1346 was enacted in 2021, which bans the sale of gas-powered lawn equipment beginning in 2024.1 Because the Project would not be built and operational until after 2024, it is reasonably expected that any new lawn maintenance equipment introduced at the Project site would be electric in compliance with the mandatory requirements of AB 1346. A-5 The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project. As described in DEIR Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 4.7-22, it is not feasible for the City to require substantive physical modifications to the Project’s building 1 California Assembly Bill 1346. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-11 design (such as the addition of solar panels) because the Project’s building design was determined by the federal government as part of the already concluded federal procurement process. As a result, the City has no jurisdiction or ability to unilaterally require the addition of improvements such as rooftop solar panels, as without U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs approval, it would conflict with the building design approved by the VA / federal government. It should be noted, however, that the federal requirements do include, and the Project will incorporate, various environmental sustainability features that will reduce the Project’s air pollutant and GHG emissions, although to be as conservative as possible and because it is difficult to precisely calculate emission reductions from various sustainability features due to limitations in the computer modeling programs used to calculate emissions, the air quality and GHG reductions that will result from inclusion of the proposed sustainability features were not specifically quantified as part of the DEIR’s analyses. As provided in Attachment A to this FEIR, the government solicitation for the VA Clinic included, among other items, the following sustainable design features, which will (and in fact must) be included in the Project: • The Project design will meet federal mandates for sustainability and energy efficiency. An ASHRAE 90.1-2013 base-case energy model and an as-designed energy model were required and reviewed by the federal government, targeting compliance with the 30% energy reduction goal, or exceeding the goal. Water use analysis and daylighting calculations also were required and reviewed by the federal government. A final ASHRAE 90.1-2013 base-case energy model and an as-designed energy model will be required based on the Project’s construction documents, including all assumptions used, demonstrating compliance with the 30% energy reduction goal. • Energy Star® targets are required to be met. • Energy use reduction by 30% is required compared to the baseline building performance rating per the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2013, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential. • Energy Star and FEMP-designated Energy Efficient Products will be used, as available. • Per the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) Section 523, at least 30% of the hot water demand is required to be met through the installation of solar hot water heaters, when life-cycle cost-effective. • Per the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) Section 103, building level utility meters will be installed to track and continuously optimize performance. Actual performance data is required to be reported from the first year of operation with the energy design target. After one year of occupancy, all new major installations are required to be measured using the Energy Star® Portfolio Manager for building and space types covered by Energy Star®. This data is required to be annually provided to the VA. • Compliance with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Oct 2016) is required, which establishes requirements for Government leases relating to energy efficiency standards and Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-12 potential cost effective energy efficiency and conservation improvements. Unless one of the statutory exceptions of the EISA applies as listed in Attachment A to this FEIR, a federal government lease may awarded for a building only if the building has earned the ENERGY STAR® label conferred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the most recent year prior to the due date for final proposal revisions. The term “most recent year” means that the date of award of the ENERGY STAR® label by EPA must not be more than 1 year prior to the due date of final proposal revisions. For example, an ENERGY STAR® label awarded by EPA on October 1, 2010, is valid for all lease procurements where final proposal revisions are due on or before September 30, 2011. In lieu of the above, all new buildings being specifically constructed for the Federal Government must achieve an ENERGY STAR® label within 18 months after occupancy by the Government. In addition, Offerors of the following Buildings shall also have up to 18 months after occupancy by the Government, or as soon thereafter as the Building is eligible for Energy Star® consideration, to achieve an Energy Star® label: Notwithstanding the foregoing energy efficiency requirements, the City is adding the following Mitigation Measure, as further discussed in Response to Comment D-47: GHG MM-4 The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. Mitigation Measure GHG MM-4 represents the maximum possible the City is able to do with respect to requiring an onsite solar power system. If approved by the VA, installation of solar would likely reduce the Project’s impacts on GHG to a less than significant level, but because it is currently uncertain if the VA will approve this change and the City cannot force the federal government to do so, the City and EIR still assumes that the Project’s GHG impacts will be significant and unavoidable. This conclusion is also based on an extremely conservative net-zero significance threshold, as explained in detail in DEIR Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. A-6 The District recommends that the City and Project proponents install electric vehicle chargers on the Project Site. In compliance with the 2021 California Green Building Standards Code2, and as shown on DEIR Figure 3-1, Overall Conceptual Site Plan, 29 electric vehicle charging spaces and clean air stalls will be provided. A-7 The District informs that the Project may be subject to, and require District permits for, District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), which requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to 2 California Building Standards Commission. 2021 California Green Building Standards Code. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-13 Construct and Permit to Operate from the District, and District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), which requires that new and stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology. These Rules and their potential applicability to the Project is noted. The Project is not expected to require a stationary source permit, but compliance with District Rule 2201 is mandatory should such a permit be required.3 The DEIR disclosed the potential need for District approvals and permits in DEIR Table 3-1 (DEIR p. 3-3), including those required by Rule 2010. The unlikely but potential need for a stationary source permit under Rule 2201 has been added to Table 3-1 in the FEIR. • Approve Stationary Source Permits (if such permits are required). A-8 The District states that the Project is subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), which requires developers to mitigate their NOX and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects, and informs that an Air Impact Assessment application (“ISR Application”) is required to be submitted. This Rule and its applicability to the Project is noted. DEIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, p. 4.2-26, provides regulatory requirement AIR RR-1 that addresses mandatory compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510. Typically, the ISR Application is submitted after City approval of the land use entitlements, but the Project’s ISR Application was submitted to the District on July 14, 2023. A copy of the submitted ISR Application is included as Attachment B to this FEIR. A-9 The District informs that the Project may be subject to District Rule 4601, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings and specifies storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements.4 This Rule and its potential applicability to the Project is noted and although mandatory compliance to applicable SJVAPCD Rules is assumed in the DEIR’s analyses, compliance with Rule 4601 is added to the FEIR as AIR-RR-2, Item a. AIR-RR-2: The Project is required to be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules, including but not limited to the following: a. SJVAPCD Rule 4601, Architectural Coatings, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. b. SVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants and other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. c. SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, which limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. 3 SJVAPCD Rule 2201. https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r2201.pdf 4 SJVAPCD Rule 4601. https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-14 A-10 The District informs that the Project may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form, required for projects at least 1-acre in size, or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan, required for a disturbance of 5 acres or more or projects relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day, prior to commencing any earthmoving activities. This information and its potential applicability to the Project is noted. The DEIR disclosed the potential need for District approvals and permits in DEIR Table 3-1 (DEIR p. 3-3) and the potential need for a Dust Control Plan has been added to Table 3-1 in the FEIR. • Approve a Dust Control Plan. A-11 The District informs that the Project may be subject to District Rule 4102 (Nuisance)5 and District Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations)6. These Rules and their potential applicability to the Project are noted and although mandatory compliance to applicable SJVAPCD Rules is assumed in the DEIR’s analyses, compliance with Rule 4102 and Rule 4641 are added to the FEIR as AIR-RR-2, Items b. and c., as indicated above in Response A-9. A-12 The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent, and provides contact information for the District. The City has provided a copy of the District’s letter to the Project applicant as requested. The SJVAPCD’s contact information is acknowledged. 5 SJVAPCD Rule 4012. https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4102.pdf 6 SJVAPCD Rule 4641. https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4641.pdf Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-15 Comment Letter B B-1 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-16 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER B: Kern County Public Works B-1 Kern County Public Works informs that if public roadway improvements are constructed at Knudsen Drive and Olive Drive, reimbursement from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Traffic Impact Fee may be available. The comment is noted. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-17 Comment Letter C C-1 C-2 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-18 Comment Letter C C-3 C-2(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-19 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER C: Channel Law Group, LLP C-1 Channel Law Group comments that the end of the DEIR public comment period was set as Monday, June 19, 2023, which is Juneteenth, a federal holiday. Although the City of Bakersfield and State of California were open for business on June 19, 2023, the City of Bakersfield extended the DEIR public comment period to June 20, 2023, as a courtesy to allow the public additional time to submit public comments on the DEIR. The Notice of Time Extension of Public Review was posted on the City’s website and the State Clearinghouse website on June 14, 2023, posted at the Kern County Clerk on June 15, 2023, and the City sent notification of the extended public review period to The Channel Law Group by email. C-2 Channel Law Group comments on two of the DEIR’s technical appendices posted for public review stating that: 1) the AERMOD computer model printouts were omitted from Technical Appendix B; and 2) Technical Appendix D was dated April 1, 2022, rather than November 23, 2022, as cited in the DEIR. Regarding Technical Appendix B, the AERMOD modeling results were available in the Project’s publicly available administrative record on file with the City of Bakersfield and were available for public review upon request. Upon receiving this comment, the City added a note to its website where the DEIR was posted noting “AERMOD and HARP2 files are available upon request by contacting Louis Ramirez, lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us.” The Channel Law Group requested the AERMOD and HARP2 files on June 15, 2023 via email, and they received the files from the City on the same day. Regarding Technical Appendix D, upon receiving this comment, the November 23, 2022, version of the Project’s Cultural Resources report was posted to the City of Bakersfield’s website and the State Clearinghouse website on June 14, 2023. The November 23, 2022, Cultural Resources Report included the same content as the April 1, 2022, version of the report but with the addition of cultural resources records search results, which indicated that no Native American cultural resources were identified on or near the Project Site. Thus, the November 23, 2022, report did not disclose any information relating potentially significant impacts that was not already available in the April 1, 2022, version of the report. C-3 Channel Law Group requests recirculation of the DEIR and requests to receive future notices concerning the Project. The City has added Channel Law Group to the mailing list for public notices concerning the Project. As indicated in Response C-1, the City extended the DEIR public review period by one day to June 20, 2023, as a courtesy, but the DEIR was not required to be recirculated. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a lead agency is not required to recirculate a DEIR unless significant new information is added that would change the DEIR in a way that would have deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The AERMOD modeling results were available for public inspection by contacting the City, and omission of the computer modeling result printouts from the City’s website and State Clearinghouse website did not deprive the public from a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the Project’s environmental effects and the contents and conclusions of the DEIR. A summary of the modeling results was provided in DEIR Technical Appendix B and in the DEIR under Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, and Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Channel Law Group submitted no comments on the DEIR’s analyses or conclusions in this comment letter. The Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-20 cultural records search results available in the November 23, 2022, version of the Project’s Cultural Resources Report indicated that no Native American cultural resources were identified on or near the Project Site; as such, the public was not deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the environmental effects and the contents and conclusions reached in the DEIR pertaining to this subject matter. In summary, the DEIR was not required to be recirculated. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-21 Comment Letter D D-1 D-2 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-22 Comment Letter D D-3 D-2(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-23 Comment Letter D D-4 D-3(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-24 Comment Letter D D-4(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-25 Comment Letter D D-5 D-4(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-26 Comment Letter D D-5(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-27 Comment Letter D D-6 D-7 D-5(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-28 Comment Letter D D-8 D-7(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-29 Comment Letter D D-9 D-10 D-8(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-30 Comment Letter D D-11 D-12 D-14 D-13 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-31 Comment Letter D D-15 D-17 D-18 D-16 D-19 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-32 Comment Letter D D-20 D-22 D-24 D-21 D-23 D-25 D-19(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-33 Comment Letter D D-26 D-28 D-27 D-29 D-30 D-25(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-34 Comment Letter D D-31 D-32 D-30(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-35 Comment Letter D D-33 D-32(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-36 Comment Letter D D-34 D-35 D-36 D-37 D-38 D-39 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-37 Comment Letter D D-40 D-41 D-42 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-38 Comment Letter D D-43 D-42(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-39 Comment Letter D D-44 D-45 D-46 D-47 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-40 Comment Letter D D-48 D-49 D-47(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-41 Comment Letter D D-50 D-49(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-42 Comment Letter D D-51 D-50(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-43 Comment Letter D D-52 D-53 D-54 D-51(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-44 Comment Letter D D-55 D-54(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-45 Comment Letter D D-56 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-46 Comment Letter D D-56(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-47 Comment Letter D D-57 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-48 Comment Letter D D-58 D-57(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-49 Comment Letter D D-58(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-50 Comment Letter D D-59 D-60 D-58(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-51 Comment Letter D D-60(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-52 Comment Letter D D-60(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-53 Comment Letter D D-61 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-54 Comment Letter D D-62 D-63 D-61(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-55 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-56 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-57 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-58 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-59 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-60 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-61 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-62 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-63 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-64 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-65 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-66 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-67 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-68 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-69 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-70 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-71 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-72 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-73 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-74 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-75 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-76 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-77 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-78 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-79 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-80 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-81 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-82 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-83 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-84 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-85 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-86 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-87 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-88 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-89 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-90 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-91 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-92 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-93 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-94 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-95 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-96 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-97 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-98 Comment Letter D D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-99 Comment Letter D D-64 D-63(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-100 Comment Letter D D-64(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-101 Comment Letter D D-65 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-102 Comment Letter D D-66 D-65(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-103 Comment Letter D D-66(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-104 Comment Letter D D-67 D-66(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-105 Comment Letter D D-67(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-106 Comment Letter D D-68 D-69 D-67(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-107 Comment Letter D D-70 D-69(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-108 Comment Letter D D-70(CONT.) D-71 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-109 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER D: Channel Law Group, LLP on behalf of Progress for Bakersfield Veterans D-1 This introductory comment identifies that the comment letter is submitted on behalf of Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC (“PBV”), the owner and landlord for the existing Veterans Affairs clinic in the City, located at 1801 Westwind Drive Bakersfield, CA 93301-3028, and unsuccessful bidder for a new or remodeled clinic. Additional background material from the applicant regarding PBV’s prior attempts to stop the award of the Project to the Project applicant is attached hereto as Attachment J. The comment is acknowledged. D-2 Channel Law Group referenced their previously submitted letter, dated June 14, 2023 (Comment Letter C), and the City’s immediate response to their letter which extended the DEIR public comment period by one day and provided information about how to obtain the requested technical information. Channel Law Group asserts that because the City made the AERMOD and HARP2 air quality modeling files available upon request and did not post the computer modeling printouts online, the DEIR should be recirculated. This is an incorrect assertion, as CEQA does not require that highly technical information such as the computer modeling files that are appendices to appendices be posted on websites; the information was in the Project’s administrative record on file with the City of Bakersfield and was made available for public review upon request. The results of the computer modeling were summarized in DEIR Technical Appendix B and in the DEIR itself, in Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, and Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. An EIR may contain a summary of information in a technical report without appending the report to the EIR or incorporating the technical information into the EIR or its appendices (see Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. v County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 CA4th 184, 219.) The City determined that the DEIR’s public review period was sufficient for adequate public review of the DEIR and further extension of the review period was unnecessary and not required by CEQA. Also refer to Response C-3. D-3 Channel Law Group provides a summary of the Project and states that the Project site is located in an environmentally sensitive area due to its location within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) boundaries and acknowledges that the HCP expired on January 1, 2023. The summary is noted. For clarification, the HCP, before it expired, covered a 405-square-mile area of the City of Bakersfield/County of Kern jurisdiction including many urban areas, and the fact that a property was located within the HCP boundaries did not in and of itself indicate or otherwise imply that the property was environmentally sensitive.7 The commenter is referred to DEIR Subsection 4.3, Biological Resources, for information on the Project site’s existing biological condition. D-4 Channel Law Group provides a detailed history of the VA’s process to select the Project site as the preferred location for the proposed Project. The commenter states that the Project history provided in the DEIR is incomplete and suggests that the complete history be included. The DEIR provides Project background information in DEIR Section 1.0, Introduction, on pp. 1-2 and 1-3. This background 7 City of Bakersfield, 1994. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/weblink/0/edoc/625001/Metropolitan%20Bakersfield%20Habitat%20Conservation%20Plan. pdf Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-110 includes relevant information to provide the DEIR reader with an understanding of the pertinent history of the proposed Project. The additional material that the commenter suggests be added does not directly contribute to the analysis of an environmental effect, and only background that is material to an environmental effect is necessary to include in an EIR. Related to the commenter’s statement that the DEIR discloses impacts from the Project that were not disclosed in the prior MND, the comment is irrelevant. Approximately two years passed between publication of the prior MND and publication of the DEIR, within which time there were changes in regulatory requirements, analysis methodologies, analytical tools, and the environment. Further, generally speaking, an EIR is a more comprehensive environmental document than an MND, and therefore often contains more detail. The DEIR presents the most current information about the Project and its potential environmental effects, and is the basis upon which the City will make its CEQA compliance determination concerning the Project. This represents the City’s deliberative process working as intended by CEQA, and as a result, the DEIR presents the most complete picture possible of the Project’s potential impacts on the environment. D-5 Channel Law Group incorrectly states that the Project’s history represents defacto federal approval of the Project prior to environmental review. While the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) solicitation that resulted in the federal government’s selection of the Project applicant’s proposal for the Project and Project site as the preferred location for the Project, it did not influence the analysis that was provided in the DEIR. As stated in the DEIR, Section S.0, Executive Summary, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Sections 15120-15132 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Project. Although the VA selected the Project site as its preferred location for the Project, selected the Project applicant’s proposal for the Project itself, and issued specifications for the Project’s building design, the Project cannot be implemented with a separate, independent Site Plan Review approval process by the City of Bakersfield, which is a discretionary review process intended to ensure that the Project’s design has met all of the City’s requirements, does not conflict with the City’s General Plan, and complies with the City’s Municipal Code. The federal government’s selection of the Project Site as the preferred location of the Project and the federal government’s design specifications for the proposed Project’s building design do not in any way compel or obligate the City to approve the Project Applicant’s Site Plan Review application. However, according to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, a Site Plan may only be denied if a project does not comply with City codes, standards or policies, or CEQA. The City of Bakersfield cannot impose mitigation measures or select a project alternative that falls outside of its jurisdictional authority or is infeasible. As the federal government has issued strict design specifications for the proposed building, which the City has verified complies with its General Plan and Municipal Code, it is not feasible for the City to add a mitigation measure that obligates the federal government to change its design specifications to add solar panels to the building roof. However, the City has further retained its full discretion under CEQA to impose all feasible mitigation measures, approve an alternative instead of the proposed Project, or refuse to approve the Project because it cannot make the required findings under CEQA, including supporting a statement of overriding considerations. Simply put, nothing about the federal approval process forces the City to approve the Project, and instead the City must – and has – comply with CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City is adding the following Mitigation Measure, as further discussed in Response to Comment D-47: Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-111 GHG MM-4 The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. This Mitigation Measure GHG MM-4 represents the maximum possible the City is able to do with respect to requiring an onsite solar power system. If approved by the VA, installation of solar would likely reduce the Project’s impacts on GHG to a less than significant level, but because it is currently uncertain if the VA will approve this change and the City cannot force the federal government to do so, the City and EIR still assumes that the Project’s GHG impacts will be significant and unavoidable. This conclusion is also based on an extremely conservative net-zero significance threshold, as explained in detail in DEIR Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. D-6 Channel Law Group states that the Project is subject to NEPA, that per CEQA Guidelines Section 15226 a joint CEQA/NEPA document should be prepared, and requests that the DEIR detail actions taken by the VA regarding NEPA compliance and cooperative actions taken by the VA and the City regarding the Project and the environmental documentation for the Project. This is not correct, because the VA has already determined the Project is exempt from NEPA, and that determination has not been challenged. Refer to Responses D-7 and D-8 for the requested information. D-7 Channel Law Group describes three levels of NEPA documents and refers to the VA’s Categorical Exemption (CATEX) for the Project, claiming that the VA should have evaluated extraordinary circumstances including the presence of protected species or resources and prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) instead of a CATEX. Although the commenter is correct that the proposed Project is subject to NEPA, they are incorrect that a CATEX from NEPA is inappropriate for this Project. Ultimately, the commenter relies on outdated and incomplete information in attempting to challenge the validity of the CATEX, rather than the final CATEX approved by the VA. Channel Law Group argues that as “shown on the VA’s Review of Site Environmental Information and Recommended NEPA Documentation form” (attached as Attachment A to their letter), “the VA determined that there was inadequate information regarding cultural resources and wildlife and habitat on which to make a determination as to whether a CATEX could be justified and indicated the need for more information.” This included the need for a biological field study discussing the San Joaquin kit fox and several other species of wildlife. However, this form cited by the commenter was completed and signed by a VA Environmental Officer in February 2020. Meanwhile, the approved CATEX for this Project (included as Attachment C to this FEIR) was signed by the same VA Environmental Officer almost a year later in January 2021, after additional consultation with federal agencies and the performance of a biological study. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-112 In June 2020, a biological study (“Study”) was conducted by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (“ECORP”). Pursuant to this Study, ECORP concluded that “[a]lthough the site contains several burrows that are potentially suitable for San Joaquin kit fox, the potential for kit fox occupancy is considered low due to the presence of intense urban development in the immediate site vicinity.” (ECORP Letter, p. 6.) Even with such a low probability, ECORP recommended the Project comply with the following mitigation measure: CATEX MM-01: When applying for a grading or building permit from the City of Bakersfield, the developer would also initiate actions to comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (“MBHCP”), including paying the Habitat Mitigation Fee as required, performing/submitting a Biological Clearance Survey, and implementing Species Protection Measures during construction, as well as all other MBHCP requirements. This Study prepared by ECORP was shared with the United States Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) in June 2020 as part of the VA’s request for formal consultation. (VA Letter to USFWS, dated June 11, 2020; p. 1.) In this request, the VA stated “a field survey identified no suitable habitat for 10…species identified on the IPaC Official Species List for this location” and had therefore concluded “no effect” to those species. In regards to the San Joaquin kit fox, the consultation letter specified that the developer will obtain third party coverage under the MBHCP for the project’s potential effects to the kit fox when acquiring development permits from the City, which includes paying the required habitat mitigation fee and implementation of all measures included in the MBHCP to reduce impacts to the kit fox. (Id., p. 2.) The USFWS responded that it had “reviewed the proposed [P]roject and…determined that it is consistent with the development activities covered in the MBHCP and associated intra-Service biological opinion.” (USFWS Letter in Response to VA Consultation, dated June 2020; p. 2.) Thus, as long as the required habitat mitigation fees needed to obtain third-party coverage under the MBHCP are paid, no further action was required by the VA and the VA’s obligation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was complete. (Id.) Therefore, after additional consultation with the USFWS, the preparation of a biological study, and the continued adherence to the recommended mitigation measure, the VA was correct in determining that a CATEX was all that was required, as all extraordinary circumstances had been properly addressed. Moreover, the VA’s determination was never challenged, thus it is immune from collateral attack. It is also completely outside the City’s jurisdiction to determine whether or not the VA made the correct determination under NEPA, although here, the City is of the opinion that the VA did in fact comply with NEPA. Finally, it bears noting that CEQA is generally much more rigorous and protective of the environment than NEPA, as evidenced by the preparation of a full EIR for the Project under CEQA, in comparison to a CATEX under NEPA. Stated differently, the preparation of the DEIR for the Project pursuant to CEQA has fully disclosed, analyzed and mitigated (to the extent feasible) all of the Project’s impacts on the environment, and preparation of a joint EIR/EIS here would not only be legally improper, but it Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-113 would not disclose any additional impacts or otherwise afford any additional protection to the environment. D-8 Channel Law Group requests that the City prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA document because the VA’s issuance of the lease and lease terms is part of the whole of the action defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15003(h). The commenter is referred to Response D-7, wherein it is explained that a CATEX was properly prepared and approved as the NEPA compliance document for the Project. D-9 Channel Law Group states that the administrative process for the Project began with the application for Site Plan Review No. 20-0102, references a letter submitted by the law firm of Soluri Meserve, and requests detailed responses to the issues raised in that letter. Responses to the Soluri Meserve letter, dated March 1, 2021, are provided below, starting at Response D-57. Many of the comments in the letter are no longer applicable as the MND, having SCH No 2020120042 and which was approved by the City’s Planning Commission on January 7, 2021 and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102, approved by the City’s Development Services Director on January 8, 2021, have since been rescinded. The DEIR and updated technical reports for the current Project have been prepared in an effort to ensure that all of the Project’s potential impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated, as well as specifically address comments received in the 2020 and 2021 administrative process, including the Soluri Meserve letter. D-10 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR relies on conclusionary statements unsupported by substantial evidence when concluding that there is no Farmland on the Project site and that impacts to Farmland would be less than significant. To the contrary, the DEIR relied upon substantial evidence provided by the California Department of Conservation (CDC), Important Farmland Finder8, which indicates that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) located on the Project site (DEIR, p. 5-4). Additionally, the Project site is not designated or zoned for agricultural uses by the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, although agricultural activities occurred on the Project Site 50 to 80 years ago (approximately 1937 to 1973), there has not been any farming activity or agricultural uses on the Project Site for the past 50 years and the CDC does not designate the Site as Farmland. Accordingly, and as correctly concluded in DEIR Section 5.4, Effects Found Not to be Significant During the EIR Scoping Process, the Project does not, on the basis of substantial evidence including mapping information provided by the CDC, have the potential to directly or indirectly convert Farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. While not required, to avoid all doubt, the City’s consultant has prepared a LESA Analysis for the 9.0 acres of the Project site based on its APN parcel size, but excluding approximately 1.5 acres of fronting roadway right-of-way that also falls within the boundaries of the 10.5-acre Project site but which are precluded from agricultural by virtue of the use being roadway (see Attachment I to this FEIR). The LESA Model was used to determine if the subject property qualifies as an important agricultural resource. The Project site received a LESA score of 24.5. Lands that receive a LESA score between 0 and 39 are not considered significant agricultural land resources under CEQA. Thus, the Project site was determined to not have important agricultural land resources. Therefore, Project impacts on 8 California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-114 agricultural land resources and the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use would not be considered significant, as properly concluded in the DEIR. D-11 Channel Law Group comments that the Initial Study’s less-than-significant conclusion under the topic of Hydrology, Threshold b(ii), is not supported by substantial evidence. The commenter is referred to DEIR Subsection 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, where a detailed evaluation of this subject matter is disclosed. The conclusions of DEIR Subsection 4.9 are based on substantial evidence contained in a technical study entitled “Hydrology & Hydraulics Report, VA Bakersfield Community Based Outpatient Clinic,” prepared by EA Engineers, dated June 11, 2020 (DEIR Technical Appendix G2) and an update letter to the Hydrology & Hydraulics Report, dated January 24, 2023, prepared by EA Engineers (DEIR Technical Appendix G1). The Hydrology and Hydraulics Report calculates the pre- development and post-development hydrology conditions for the Project site; quantifies the impact of the development on hydrology conditions on the Project site; and quantifies the increase in flow rates in the 10-year/24-hour storm and 100-year/24-hour storm events. As concluded by the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report prepared by professional experts at EA Engineers, the structures, landscaping, and impervious surfaces proposed on the Project site would not increase peak discharge rates taking into consideration the proposed installation of two drainage basins at the southeast and southwest corners of the Project Site (DEIR Technical Appendix G2, p. 5). Additionally, it was determined by EA Engineers that the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area (DEIR Technical Appendix G2, p. 6). D-12 Channel Law Group contends that the Initial Study’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan designation and zoning ignored evidence provided during the administrative process implying that the Project is not allowed in the M-2 land use designation and that there is no discussion of the effect of the City’s pending General Plan Update. To the contrary, the City of Bakersfield has confirmed that the Project is consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan designation of Service Industrial (SI) and zoning designation of General Manufacturing (M-2) as explained in detail in DEIR Subsection 4.10, Land Use and Planning (DEIR pp. 4.10-8 to 4.10-15). The M-2 zoning classification, which under the City’s Euclidean pyramid zoning structure, allows all uses permitted in the C-O zone, including medical clinics. The City, as it must in order for its Euclidean pyramid zoning structure to properly function, interprets its General Plan in a similar manner as its zoning, meaning that less intensive uses are generally allowed in, and considered consistent with, more intensive land use designations. As stated in the DEIR, p. 4.10-2, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designates the Project Site as SI. The SI land use designation allows for industrial activities as well as other less intensive uses. Many existing health care facilities in the City of Bakersfield are located in the SI land use designation, as well as in the Light Industrial (LI) land use designation including but not limited to Good Samaritan Hospital, Old Town Kern Community Health Center, Kern Rehab, Centre for Neuro Skills, and Accelerated Urgent Care. The proposed Project is a consistent land use in the SI land use designation under the City’s Euclidean pyramid zoning structure, which necessarily includes a “pyramid” interpretation of General Plan land use designations, where less intensive uses are generally consistent with land use designations that allow more intensive uses. In other words, less intensive uses are generally consistent with more intensive MBGP land use designations by implication, as such an interpretation is both logical and necessary for the City’s zoning structure to be consistent with the MBGP. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-115 The commenter also questions relevancy of the City’s pending MBGP Update. As stated in DEIR Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, p. 2-5, and in Subsection 4.10, Land Use and Planning, p. 4.10-2, at the time the EIR was prepared, the City of Bakersfield was preparing a General Plan Update; however, the adopted MBGP was the pertinent long-range planning document for the purposes of evaluation in the DEIR. Per the City of Bakersfield website, the 2045 General Plan Update isn’t expected to be adopted by City Council legislative action until Winter 20249, which is well past the completion date of the Project’s EIR. D-13 Channel Law Group requests a map showing the location of the abandoned well (Borel 1). The requested map from CalGEM is shown below, indicating that the abandoned well (indicated by the black dot and number “1”) is located off-site to the south of the Project Site (CalGEM Well Finder website)10. Accordingly, as correctly concluded on DEIR pp. 5-5 and 5-6, there are no known oil, gas, or injection wells located within the boundaries of the Project Site and the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. The commenter also requests a map showing evidence of oil/gas transmission pipeline absence on the Project Site. The Project Site’s ALTA Survey, provided as Attachment D to this FEIR, does not show any wells or transmission lines crossing the Project site. 9 City of Bakersfield, General Plan Update Timeline: https://bakersfield2045.com/general-plan/ 10 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), Well Finder: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-116 D-14 Channel Law Group comments that the Initial Study lacks substantial evidence to show that the Project’s noise impacts would be less than significant and commends the City for analyzing the topic of Noise in the DEIR, Subsection 4.11. The noise analysis was based on a technical report titled, “VA Medical Clinic, Noise and Vibration Analysis, City of Bakersfield,” dated February 21, 2023, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (DEIR Technical Appendix H). The Noise Report supplies substantial evidence for the conclusion that the Project would result in less-than-significant noise impacts. D-15 Channel Law Group comments that the Initial Study lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there is existing fire and police capacity to support the additional demand that would result from the Project. As indicated on DEIR p. 5-7, fire protection services and police services are provided to the Project Site through joint implementation measures between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. The Project, which would serve existing residents and replace the services offered at the currently existing VA Clinic in the City on Westwind Drive, would not cause the need for the physical construction of a new fire or police station or require physical alteration of an existing station, because the Project would not materially increase, if at all, demand for fire or police services in the City. Refer to Attachment E for letters from the Bakersfield Fire Department and Bakersfield Police Department. The Bakersfield Fire Department letter states that the Project would have no significant impact on fire department operations and that existing resources and infrastructure would be more than capable of meeting the fire safety and emergency response demands of the Project. The Bakersfield Police Department letter states that the Project will have no significant impact on Police Department operations and that the existing resources and infrastructure are more than sufficient to meet the policing needs of the Project and the community it will serve. D-16 Channel Law Group comments that the Initial Study lacks substantial evidence that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with the provision of wet and dry utilities to the Project site. As demonstrated on the Project’s Site Plan Review application materials, all utility connection points are site adjacent and all physical ground disturbances to connect the Project to utility systems would occur within the Project’s physical disturbance impact footprint analyzed in the DEIR. As such and as correctly stated in the DEIR in Subsection 5.4.6, Utilities and Service Systems, physical impacts related to construction and installation of utilities is addressed throughout DEIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic area analyzes impacts from construction and operation of the Project, which would include the installation and operation of utility systems. Regarding service capacity, DEIR Appendices J and K are will-serve letters from California Water Service (Cal Water) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). D-17 Channel Law Group commented that the City appropriately decided that the DEIR should address the topics of Land Use and Planning and Noise, which the Initial Study indicated would have less-than- significant impacts. The topic of Land Use and Planning was analyzed in DEIR Subsection 4.10 and the topic of Noise was analyzed in DEIR Subsection 4.1. Additionally, a Noise and Vibration Analysis is included as DEIR Technical Appendix I. D-18 Channel Law Group requests a detailed description of the services to be provided by the VA on the Project site. As described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, p. 3-5, services would include audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory (outpatient) medical care, an eye clinic, physical and Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-117 occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services. Similar detail is also provided in the documents from the federal bidding process relating to the Project (i.e., the VA’ bid specifications and the Project applicant’s accepted proposal), which are part of administrative record. This is a reasonably foreseeable range of services to inform analysis in the DEIR and there are no anticipated services that would provide any greater degree of environmental effects than those considered. To provide a list of services that may be provided into the future beyond the current list of services anticipated by the VA would be pure speculation. D-19 Channel Law Group requests information be provided on Project’s anticipated employment and the average and maximum number of staff and patients to be on-site daily and at one time and questions why there are more parking spaces in the Project’s design and more daily vehicle trips assumed than the anticipated building’s occupancy. As stated on DEIR p. 4.8-11, the facility is estimated to employ approximately 50 persons and serve 100 patients on any given day, on average. As shown on DEIR Figure 3-1, Overall Conceptual Site Plan, based on the building’s square footage, 194 parking spaces are required per City of Bakersfield standards, and 203 parking spaces are required per VA standards. The Project Applicant designed the building with 207 parking spaces, meeting both City of Bakersfield and VA standards. The number of parking spaces are ample to serve the facility’s approximately 50 employees, 100 daily patients, and visitors and guests, including on days where the Project services a higher than average number of patients. Trip generation rates, provided in DEIR Appendix I, were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. ITE Land Use Code 630, for a Clinic development. Based on these modeling results, it was estimated that the Project would generate 1,457 daily trips, which includes all trips entering and exiting the site, and which also include multiple trips by the same vehicle, as well as service or vendor vehicles traveling to the Project that are not necessarily employees or patients. The commenter provides no evidence that the Project would have any greater environmental effects than disclosed in the DEIR related to employee or patient count, parking, or trip generation. Instead, the comment actually shows that the DEIR is quite conservative and more protective of the environment because it likely overestimates impacts by relying on a daily trip rate higher than the actual vehicle trips likely to be generated by the Project on a given day. This likely overestimates the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas and transportation impacts, at a minimum. D-20 Channel Law Group requests detailed information on the Project’s specifications provided in the VA’s lease for the Project. The specifications for the VA Clinic were provided in Solicitation No. 36C10F19Q0134, having a response date of October, 17, 2019, and which is on file with the City and available for public review by request as part of the Project’s administrative record. The City will provide a copy to the commenter. D-21 Channel Law Group requests information regarding the ownership of the Project Site and whether the Project Applicant owns the Site or has an agreement with the Site owners. This not relevant for the purposes of analyzing the Project’s impacts pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, according to the City’s records, SASD Development Group, LLC is the Project Applicant and has an equitable interested in the Project Site. D-22 Channel Law Group introduces their concerns regarding the Project’s air quality modeling and mitigation for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Refer to Response D-23. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-118 D-23 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR and air quality analysis are flawed because they assumed that the environmental impacts of the existing VA clinic would cease when the VA moves out; however, the commenter asserts that the vacated space would likely be leased by another medical user and generate environmental impacts similar to the existing clinic. While the DEIR states that the existing VA clinic would close in its existing location and that the air pollutant and GHG emissions emitted by VA clinic operations at is existing location would cease, the DEIR discloses the total gross air pollutant emissions of the Project, and provides the net emissions discounting for the closure of the existing VA clinic for informational purposes only. All emissions and potential impacts presented in the DEIR and Technical Appendix B are conservative estimates based only on the emissions generated by new VA clinic, with or without closure of operational activities in the building space currently occupied by the VA clinic in its existing location. In sum, the DEIR does not rely on any “net” emissions when disclosing, analyzing or mitigating impacts, and therefore the comment is incorrect and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the analysis in the DEIR. D-24 Channel Law Group states that the Project’s biological resource assessment is inadequate because only one reconnaissance survey was performed which was insufficient to assess potential biological species on the Site, including the burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee. McCormick Biological disagrees and attests that the surveys were adequate. The site conditions were assessed based on the single reconnaissance level survey and the Biological Resources Evaluation (BRE) (Appendix C to the DEIR), which provides background detail regarding the habitat requirements for each special-status species. A complete literature review was conducted to identify all of the potentially occurring special- status species in the region of the Project. The literature review resulted in identification of several species that could occur in the region of the Project. This list was further analyzed to assess each species’ potential to occur based on whether the Project site is in the published range and contains habitat requirements to support each species and the observations of the physical and biotic environment during the reconnaissance survey. Appropriately qualified biologists can assess potential occurrence on an individual site based on experience over years in a region. The impact analysis in the BRE acknowledges that one site visit cannot be used to determine that a species is not present and assumes that site use or occupation may indeed occur prior to site development. For the species identified with any potential to occur, potential impacts were analyzed. The BRE provides a sufficient amount of baseline information for each of these species to determine if the described existing conditions could support special-status species. As stated in the BRE, burrowing owls are year-round residents in much of California, including the Central Valley, and California is important to wintering owls (Shuford & Gardali, 2008). As such, this species could occupy the California ground squirrel burrows found during the reconnaissance survey at any time of the year. Therefore, the BRE reached the accurate conclusion that suitable habitat was present and the species has potential to occupy the site. Given the site conditions, no number of negative surveys during any season would eliminate the potential for this species to occur onsite. As such, impacts were properly identified and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the potential impacts to burrowing owls that may subsequently occupy the site to less than significant. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-119 A site visit to assess presence of bumble bees due to the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) was conducted on May 26, 2023. The survey was conducted by Randi McCormick and Ashleigh Pryor, biologists with McCormick Biological, Inc. Habitat was found to be poor for the species based on lack of likely floral resources. No bumble bees of any species were observed during the survey. A complete results letter is included in Attachment H and will be placed in the Project’s administrative record with the City of Bakersfield prior to certification of the FEIR. D-25 Channel Law Group questions whether the biological resource assessment covered the full extent of the Project’s proposed physical disturbance footprint and comments that current biological values on the Site would be largely lost as a result of the Project. McCormick Biological has confirmed that the Project’s full impact footprint was studied with the results disclosed in Technical Appendix C and concurs that with implementation of the Project, the existing biological resources located on the site would be removed. Section 3.2 on Page 15 of the Biological Resources Evaluation, included as Appendix C to the DEIR, states that the Project footprint identified (shown on Figures 1-1 and 1-3 of Appendix C) and a 100-foot buffer were walked if accessible and the buffer was evaluated using binoculars if not accessible. No fences or other hindrances were noted and the resulting area walked included the entire Project site, with the exception of the existing pavement on Knudsen Drive. The 100-foot buffer covered the future alignments of Landco Drive and Street “A”. D-26 Channel Law Group states that the single biological reconnaissance survey predates the August 11, 2022, issuance of the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) by almost 10 months and thus fails to describe the existing conditions of the Project site at the time the NOP was published. Regarding the baseline conditions as they pertain to biological resources, the conditions at the time of the NOP (August 2022) would not have been more conducive to special-status species occurring than those observed during the documented site visit, as there was periodic disking and other urban disturbances that occurred on the Project site prior to the October 2021 site visit as well as over the subsequent months. According to the Project’s principal biologist, Randi McCormick, who has 35 years of experience in the urban Bakersfield area, remnant patches of open space that remain in the urban area take years to substantially change in vegetation composition and/or habitat quality without active protection and management (see resume in Attachment H to this FEIR). They are typically former agricultural lands which have ceased production for decades, but the effects of that disturbance and continued disturbance from human access, domestic dogs and cats, unauthorized dumping, and offroad access do not allow for substantial recovery. Taking those observations into consideration, the 10 months between the October 2021 site visit and the August 2022 NOP is not substantial enough to materially improve site conditions or habitat quality at this location. Further, higher than normal rainfall in the winter of 2022- 23 and spring of 2023 did not result in a substantial improvement in the site conditions based on a site visit conducted on May 26, 2023 by MBI Senior Biologist Ashleigh Pryor and Principal Biologist Randi McCormick. Although there was an observable response by vegetation and the overall vegetative height and cover was higher than observed during the previous site visit, the composition remained dominated by non-native mustards and invasive weeds.11 The overarching influence on habitat quality remains the surface management. 11 McCormick Biological, Inc. 2023. Biological Response to Comments. July 31, 2023. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-120 D-27 Channel Law Group states that October 2021, when the biological resources assessment was completed, represented a period of peak biological stress for the Project site due to the extreme drought of 2021, rather than the improved conditions at the time the NOP was issued, resulting in an inaccurate picture of the biological value of the Site and an underestimate of Project impacts. The “potential to occur” determination for special-status plant species was not made based only on the conditions at the time of the site visit. Habitat type, soils, topography, and the disturbance level in general were considered in the determination, as stated in the Biological Resources Evaluation (Appendix C to the DEIR). It should be noted that while drought conditions may affect presence in any given year making the timing of the surveys to determine presence important, drought conditions are not used to determine overall suitability or potential to occur. The conditions that were used in the Biological Resources Evaluation to determine suitability for the identified special-status plants do not change with the precipitation, as existing physical characteristics and site history were used to determine suitability along with the resulting potential to occur. It is appropriate and necessary to use professional judgment on any site, regardless of ephemeral observations, to draw conclusions regarding the potential for any given species to occur. Further, see Response D-26 above regarding immaterial changes from 2021 to the site visit on May 26, 2023, following an extremely wet 2022-23 rainy reason. CDFW’s (2018) minimum standards cited by the commentor contain a process for determining when botanical surveys to detect special-status plants and sensitive natural communities would be needed prior to project initiation. These standards provide the following guidance: Evaluate the need for botanical field surveys prior to the commencement of any activities that may modify vegetation, such as clearing, mowing, or ground-breaking activities. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey when: • Natural (or naturalized) vegetation occurs in an area that may be directly or indirectly affected by a project (project area), and it is unknown whether or not special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in the project area; • Special status plants or sensitive natural communities have historically been identified in a project area; or • Special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in areas with similar physical and biological properties as a project area. The Biological Resources Evaluation clearly identifies the existing site conditions and why these conditions preclude the occurrence of any special-status plant species, showing that it is not unknown whether any such species occur on the project (refer to bullet 1, above). Addressing the above bullet 2, no special-status plants or sensitive natural communities have been documented on the Project site, and addressing the above bullet 3, no special status plants or sensitive natural communities were identified that occur in areas with similar physical and biological properties compared to the Project site. Therefore, conducting multiple surveys is not warranted to identify potential impacts to special- status plants or sensitive natural communities. D-28 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR fails to disclose why the biological resource assessment only reports on the findings of a single reconnaissance survey in 2021, when two additional reconnaissance Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-121 surveys were conducted in 2020 and 2022. A detailed response to this comment is provided above in Responses D-24, 26, and D-27. D-29 Channel Law Group comments that the survey methodology provided in the biological resource assessment is incomplete and must include information on the time the survey began, the duration, weather conditions. For all species considered, Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the Biological Resources Evaluation, included as Appendix C to the DEIR, describe species habitat requirements and compare those requirements to observed physical conditions documented during the October 2021 reconnaissance survey. Conclusions shown in these tables are drawn from habitat requirements compared to existing conditions with further analysis in the text for special status species with any potential to occur. While the time of day and temperature would have no influence on the observed conditions or physical characteristics documented, the site visit was conducted on a partly cloudy day between 10:32 am and 11:54 am with a temperature of 60°F and light winds. From the photos included in Appendix D of the Biological Resources Evaluation, the conditions were partly cloudy and visibility was more than adequate to view the entire site. D-30 Channel Law Group provided a table of special status species likely to occur on the Project site; comments that the literature/database search for potential special status and wildlife species was incomplete; that the biological resource assessment fails to address the Project’s impact to habitat loss, wildlife movement, wildlife-automobile collision mortality, bird-window collision mortality, or cumulative impacts; and that the Project site is likely to serve as a wildlife movement corridor for the Monarch butterfly, and as a foraging habitat for gulls and raptors. All of the special-status species identified in the literature review conducted for the October 2021 reporting were considered. The following table prepared by McCormick Biological addresses the species identified in the comment letter. No significant impacts would reasonably occur as a result of the Project after mitigation. Mitigation measures included in the DEIR would result in protection of all of the listed species below that may occur on or near the Project: Species Status Notes Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC Wintering has been reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2023) approximately 4.5 miles east- southeast of the Project in eucalyptus trees at a city park. No eucalyptus or other suitable trees were found onsite for overwintering. No milkweed (Asclepias spp.) plants were identified during site visits and no breeding has been recorded in a 10-mile radius. The site does not support any identified Monarch butterfly nectar sources. Therefore, this species is not expected, and no impacts are anticipated. California gull Larus caifornicus BCC, LC No nesting by this species has been reported within a 10-mile radius of the Project (CNDDB) and no nesting habitat is present (Zeiner et al., 1990). Although the Project site meets the minimum requirements for foraging, this species is likely to forage throughout the city of Bakersfield in landfills, stormwater and water treatment impoundments, fields, and parking lots and has been documented throughout the city (iNaturalist, 2023a, ebird, 2023). No significant impacts are anticipated. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-122 Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum WL, LC This species winters in the interior of California, including Bakersfield but is not expected to nest on or near the Project site as no suitable nesting habitat is present. The Project site additionally does not meet the minimum requirements for foraging (Zeiner et al., 1990). Sightings in the vicinity are concentrated around the Kern River and other permanent water sources (iNaturalist, 2023b, ebird 2023) and this species’ population trend is increasing (BirdLife International, 2018a). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP, LC No suitable nesting habitat is present on the Project site. The Project site meets the minimum requirements for foraging and the species is likely to occasionally forage in the vicinity (Zeiner et al., 1990). Sightings of the species are relatively common throughout all seasons in and around Bakersfield (ebird, 2023) and its worldwide population status is considered stable (BirdLife International, 2018b). Although occasional foraging may occur on or near the Project site, the loss of this habitat would not result in significant impacts to the species. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP, LC No suitable nesting habitat is present on the Project site and typical foraging habitat for this species is not currently present (Zeiner et al., 1990). Cooper’s hawks are known to nest and forage in mature trees and throughout the urban area of Bakersfield where vegetation is suitable. Sightings of the species are relatively common throughout all seasons in and around established neighborhoods in the city (ebird, 2023) and its population trend is increasing (BirdLife International, 2016a). Development of the Project with its associated landscaping may actually increase the availability of suitable habitat for this species in the vicinity. No significant impacts are anticipated. Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP, LC This species is extremely common throughout all habitat types in California. It is very flexible in selection of nesting substrate, from relatively undisturbed forests and riparian areas to manmade structures (Zeiner et al., 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and no unoccupied raptor nests were observed on the Project site or surrounding area during the site visits. Foraging habitat is present throughout the city of Bakersfield including on the Project site. Its population trend is considered increasing (BirdLife International, 2016b). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. Implementation of BIO MM-2 would result in avoiding impacts to nesting individuals should they subsequently nest on or near the Project site. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-123 Barn owl Tyto alba BOP, LC This species’ requirements are flexible, and it is extremely common throughout all habitat types, including urban situations. In urban areas, nesting typically occurs in structures, crevices, on ledges of structures, or in trees or snags. Roosts in similar locations and is active year-round (Zeiner et al., 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and nesting onsite is not expected. Foraging habitat is present throughout the city of Bakersfield including on the Project site. This species’ population trend is considered stable (BirdLife International, 2019). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. No impacts would occur. American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP, LC This species is extremely common throughout all habitat types in California. It is very flexible in selection of nesting substrate, nesting in cavities and crevices trees and manmade structures (Zeiner et al., 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and no potentially suitable cavities were observed on the Project site or surrounding area during the site visits. Foraging habitat is present throughout the City of Bakersfield including on the Project site. This species’ population trend is considered stable (BirdLife International, 2016c). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. Implementation of BIO MM-2 would result in avoiding impacts to nesting individuals should they subsequently nest on or near the Project site. Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP, LC California is not included in the breeding range of this species (Zeiner et al., 1990). Main prey consists of small birds, with some other items selected (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species is occasionally observed during winter in the city (ebird, 2023) and its population status is considered stable (BirdLife International, 2021a). The loss of the Project site as winter foraging habitat would not be significant. Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BCC, CFP, LC Kern County is not included in the breeding range of this species (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species occasionally reported in city (ebird, 2023) and its population status is considered increasing (BirdLife International, 2021b). The loss of the Project site as winter foraging habitat would not be significant. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC, SSC2, NT This species nests in shrubs or low trees with dense foliage (Zeiner et al., 1990), none of which are present on the Project site. They are occasionally observed within the city, primarily in association with the Kern River, and rarely in urban situations (ebird, 2023). The population trend is decreasing (BirdLife International, 2020). This species is not expected on or near the Project and no impacts would occur. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-124 California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL, LC The horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) nests on the ground in the open, typically in association with grassland or other open, sparse habitats (Zeiner et al., 1990). The breeding season distribution of the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) is limited to the northwestern and southwestern corners of Kern County (Grinnell and Miller, 1944); therefore, the Project is outside of the breeding range for this race. This race of horned larks may forage outside of the breeding range, and horned larks in general are infrequently reported in the city. As such, the loss of the Project site as potential foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. No impacts would occur. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, CT This species was evaluated and potential impacts addressed in the Biological Resources Evaluation (Appendix C of the DEIR) and DEIR. Abbreviations: BOP – Birds of Prey BCC – USFWS Bird Species of Conservation Concern CT – State listed as threatened FC – Federal Candidate for Listing FE – Federally listed as endangered LC – Least Concern (International Union of Concerned Scientists Red List) SSC – California Species of Special Concern SSC2 – California Bird Species of Special Concern priority 2 (Shuford and Gardali, 2008) NT – Near Threatened (International Union of Concerned Scientists Red List) WL - Watch List (Shuford and Gardali, 2008) Lack of observations during the reconnaissance survey does not change the potential for impacts and more extensive surveys are not likely to reveal unidentified impacts given the findings shown in the table above. The Project site is not, in fact, part of a wildlife connectivity corridor. Its proximity near State Route 99, surrounding urban uses, general disturbed nature of other open lands, train tracks, and extremely heavily trafficked roads creates a risk to any terrestrial wildlife that may inhabit the site. The wildlife that typically inhabit this type of site undertake smaller movements and, other than San Joaquin kit fox, do not require large blocks of habitat to persist. While San Joaquin kit fox may require larger habitat blocks to persist in natural lands, within the City of Bakersfield, they use urban landscapes such as schools, golf courses, open lots, canals, railroad rights-of-way, and other areas impacted by urban development. The area is already heavily urbanized, and human pressures are well-established. As described above, the sensitive bird species that are known from the city are found throughout the urban area and there is no reason to suspect that the development of this Project site will alter those occurrences and the potential for those species to continue using the urban area is various capacities. The site is not in or associated with any known wildlife corridors nor is it identified as an “Essential Connectivity Area” in the statewide strategy for preserving such areas (Spencer et al., 2010). D-31 Channel Law Group states that the biological resource assessment must be redone to identify the full range of impacts and the DEIR should be recirculated because the conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence or adequate analysis and fail to identify the full range of impacts. A detailed response to this comment is provided above in Responses D-24, D-26, D-27, D-29, and D-30. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-125 D-32 Channel Law Group requests dates and details of ground-disturbing activities conducted on the Project site since the initiation of environmental analysis prepared for the Project, implying that disturbances were conducted to discourage or exterminate sensitive species on the Project Site. Nothing illegal or inappropriate has occurred on the Project Site. Refer to Responses D-26 and D-27. Further, disking is a requirement set forth in Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 8.28, as without disking, the existing condition of the Project site would be considered a public nuisance (and a fire hazard). D-33 Channel Law Group comments that a reasonable amount of time must be allowed to pass without any further disking or other ground-disturbances on the Project site to properly access the full extent of the biological resources present with more accurate biological studies, upon which time, the DEIR should be recirculated. This has no basis in the law, and the City has determined that the proper baseline is the existing condition of the Project Site, which is well within its discretion under CEQA. The commenter’s suggestion that existing conditions of the Project Site, and therefore the baseline for analysis of the Project under CEQA, must be altered after the DEIR has already been released has no support, either by substantial evidence (i.e., expert opinion) or under the law. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a lead agency is not required to recirculate a DEIR unless significant new information is added that would change the DEIR in a way that would have deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. There is no requirement that the Project site be changed so that it would result in “new” information, and further, even if the Project Site was left completely undistributed (which would be in violation of the City’s requirements discussed in Response to Comment D-33), it is highly unlikely the biological resources on the Project site would materially change. The adequacy of the existing condition is further substantiated, biologically, by the Project’s principal biologist, Randi McCormick, who has 35 years of experience in the urban Bakersfield area as discussed in Responses D-26 and D-27, as well as Response D-30. D-34 Channel Law Group comments that mitigation measures in the DEIR fail to address all the potentially present special status species that could be impacted by the Project and that new mitigation measures are needed to restrain disking and require performance of additional grading/pre-ground modification full biological assessments. See also Responses to Comments D-32 and D-33 regarding the suggestion that disking should or can be stopped, which it cannot because disking for fire fuel management and general nuisance abatement is a requirement of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 8.28. D-35 Channel Law Group states that the pre-construction surveys specified in BIO MM-1 and MM-4 are inadequate for detecting special status species and should require protocol-level detection surveys prior to any pre-construction surveys. As stated in Responses D-24 and D-30, burrowing owls and kit fox may occupy areas in this part of California with potentially suitable habitat at any time. As such, mitigation measures that addresses potential occupation at the time of initial project disturbance is appropriate for implementation of avoidance of individual burrowing owls and kit fox. D-36 Channel Law Group requests that BIO MM-1 be corrected because it is inconsistent with the California Department of Fish and wildlife recognized avian breeding season of February 1 through September 15. Although BIO MM-1 appropriately notes the breeding season as ending in this portion of Kern Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-126 County per CDFW protocol on August 31 of each calendar year, BIO MM-1 and MM-2 have nonetheless been revised out of an abundance of caution to extend the mitigation requirement to September 15. BIO MM-1 Surveys to detect burrowing owls shall be conducted by a professional biologist in consultation with CDFW no more than 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities on the Project site and can be conducted concurrently with the pre-activity surveys required per BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3 and BIO MM-4. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 September 15) unless a professional biologist verifies…. BIO MM-2 If vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbing construction activity occurs during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31 September 15) a professional avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey… D-37 Channel Law Group comments that BIO MM-2 lacks adequate nest protections and that the DEIR conclusions that pre-construction surveys would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant is unsubstantiated. As is intended by the name, migratory birds are migratory, meaning that they can potentially occupy suitable habitat at any time. As such, a mitigation measures that addresses potential occupation at the time of initial project disturbance is appropriate to ensure adequate mitigation. In addition, this approach is consistent with the mandatory requirements of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (DEIR p. 4.3-4), makes the take of migratory birds illegal except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. BIO MM-2 requires that a qualified avian biologist perform the pre-construction survey(s) and qualified avian biologists have the necessary qualifications to identify migratory birds and their nests. D-38 Channel Law Group asserts that BIO MM-1 to MM-5 represent improperly deferred mitigation, improper deferral of analysis, and wrongly propose that pre-construction surveys should substitute for detection surveys. This is an incorrect assertion as explained in Responses D-24 through D-23. Burrowing owl and kit fox are detectable all times of the year and pre-construction surveys for these species and for migratory birds are required to ensure that individuals are not present, or protected if present, prior to construction. Finding and avoiding the actual species individuals just prior to construction achieves mitigation, whereas conducting additional surveys at a time long before construction when species can migrate on or off the site does not achieve actual mitigation. D-39 Channel Law Group requests additional mitigation in the form of compensatory provision of an equal area of open space in perpetuity as close to the Project Site as possible. The City and the Project’s principal biologist, Randi McCormick, who has 35 years of experience in the urban Bakersfield area, have determined that compensatory mitigation is not required to reduce the Project’s biological impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, open space in general is not necessarily compensable if the habitat being lost is not occupied by listed species. Compensation is included in BIO MM-5 for impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat, if known dens are found. Compensation for habitat disturbance for Crotch bumble bee presence would be speculative as to the effectiveness based on the current known Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-127 information about Crotch bumble bee; regardless, no Crotch bumble was detected on the site during a survey conducted in May 2023. For the remainder of the potentially occurring special-status species, the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR are adequate to reduce the impacts of the project to less than significant. D-40 Channel Law Group states that the current DEIR mitigation measures are inadequate and biological resource impacts remain significant. The City and the Project’s principal biologist, Randi McCormick, who has 35 years of experience in the urban Bakersfield area, disagree as explained in Responses D- 24 through D-39. D-41 Channel Law Group comments that due to the Project’s location in the expired Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area, loss of habitat due to the Project’s construction is significant and that the DEIR must demonstrate that mitigation is feasible. Refer to Response D-39. Mitigation in the form of compensation land, if required for a project, has been standard practice throughout the life of the MBHCP and throughout the San Joaquin Valley, including Kern County through other similar FESA and CESA permits (BLM Programmatic Oil and Gas Biological Opinion; California High Speed Rail Fresno to Bakersfield ITP and BO, and several individual project permits). The discontinuation of the MBHCP does not diminish the effectiveness of this standard approach to mitigating the loss of habitat for listed species, should occupied habitat be present. BIO MM-1 through MM-7 set forth adequate mitigation to reduce all potential impacts to sensitive biological resources to below a level of significance. Expiration of a regulatory document does not change the physical biological realities on the ground. D-42 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR has failed to provide accurate and complete information about biological resources on the Project site; the site has been improperly impacted by disking; and the DEIR failed to identify significant biological resources impacts. Responses to this general comment are supplied in Responses D-24 though D-41 and specifically refer to Responses D-32 and D-33 regarding the suggestion that disking should or can be stopped. Disking for fire fuel management is a requirement of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 8.28. D-43 Channel Law Group comments that the DEIR fails to specify whether the CDFW and/or USFWS were contacted and, if so, what guidance they provided. The commenter is referred to Response D-7, describing VA’s correspondence and formal consultation with USFWS (included as Attachment F to this FEIR). The DEIR addresses the CDFW’s NOP comments in DEIR Subsection 4.3, Biological Resources. MBI had no direct contact with agencies. However, a comment letter was received from CDFW (October 18, 2022). All three state listed species and one California species of special concern identified in the comment letter were addressed in the Biological Resources Evaluation (Appendix C of the DEIR). D-44 Channel Law Group contends that the DEIR must provide details regarding the dates of any and all tribal consultation that was conducted and must provide documentation that AB 52 and Section 106 consultation occurred. DEIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, on p.4.4-8 discloses that no Native American tribes requested consultation regarding the Project and refers the reader to Subsection 4.13, Tribal Cultural Resources. As stated in DEIR Subsection 4.13, on p. 4.13-3, “As part of the AB 52 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-128 consultation process required by State law, the City of Bakersfield did not receive any request for consultation from any tribes regarding the Project.” Section 106 consultation occurred with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and in a letter dated October 3, 2018, the SHPO concurred with the VA’s finding of no historic properties affected pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1) (included as Attachment G to this FEIR). D-45 Channel Law Group comments that the DEIR must include adequate mitigation to ensure that cultural resource impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. The DEIR includes such mitigation. DEIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources, p. 4.4-10, includes Mitigation Measures CR MM-1 and CR MM-2 which will ensure proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant historical or archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with Project construction. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CR MM-3 presented on DEIR p. 4.4-11 requires compliance with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq. in the unlikely event that Native American human remains are discovered during construction activities. D-46 Channel Law Group states that it appears odd that the biological reconnaissance survey was conducted when there was little vegetation on the Project site, but the cultural resources assessment was conducted when there were tall grasses, leading to low to moderate visibility, and questions how the times for the resource surveys were selected. The commenter also contends that cultural resource impacts may be underestimated due to visibility limitations. The biological resource survey was conducted on the Project site in October 2021, and the cultural resource survey was conducted on the Project site in March 2022. Timing was based on availability of the report preparers to conduct the work. Observations of the field surveyors are documented by pictures contained in the respective technical reports attached as DEIR Technical Appendices C and D, with the biological field surveyor indicating that ground conditions in October 2021 were influenced by recent fire abatement disking activity (Technical Appendix C, p. 16). Further, while winter 2021- 22 was generally dry, March 2022 would have been during the general rainy season ranging from December 2021 to April 2022, while October 2021 is before. As explained in Response D-24, 26, D- 27, and D-30, conditions and methodology were appropriate to adequately disclose existing biological conditions. Regarding cultural resources, the presence of vegetation is a typical condition encountered when conducting field surveys and lack of full visibility of the ground surface is not the only indicator of a site’s cultural sensitivity. Duke CRM Tech concluded based on their professional opinion that the Project site is considered to have a low potential for the presence of prehistoric and historic era archaeological resources given the lack of previously or newly identified cultural resources within or near the Project area (Technical Appendix D, p. 2). D-47 Channel Law Group comments that the DEIR must specify mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the Project’s significant GHG impacts, including the mitigation concepts suggested by the Sierra Club in its comment letter on the NOP. An analysis of the Project’s expected GHG emissions was conducted by Trinity Consultants and entitled “Small Project Analysis Level Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-129 Assessment, VA Community Outpatient Clinic, Bakersfield, CA,” The study is dated April 2023 and is included as Technical Appendix B to the DEIR. As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the analysis determined that the Project would generate approximately 946.85 MT CO2e (83.15 net new MT CO2e) annual GHG emissions, which is significant on a cumulatively- considerable basis based on the City’s highly conservative net zero threshold of significance. It bears noting that the Project’s gross emissions of 956.85 MT CO2e would be considered less than significant under virtually any numerical threshold currently used by other public agencies as a threshold of significance, including the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) and widely accepted and relied on by lead agencies within that District. After the City’s consideration of various possible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to net zero, the City determined that no other feasible mitigation measures with a proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts and that are within the City of Bakersfield’s authority to assure could measurably reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, for several reasons. Most notably, the City cannot compel the federal government to make physical modifications to the Project’s building design because the design was approved by the federal government as part of the already concluded federal procurement process. As a result, the City cannot assure that the federal government will agree to make changes to the Project’s design, as it would conflict with the design specifications approved by the VA / federal government. It should be noted, however, that the federal requirements do include, and the Project will incorporate, various environmental sustainability features that will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, although based on the limitations of computer models to calculate GHG emission reductions as a result of these features, those reductions were not specifically quantified as part of the DEIR. Suggested individual mitigation measures presented in the Sierra Club’s NOP comment letter are discussed below. To reduce GHG emissions the Sierra Club suggests the following. • The Sierra Club suggests the addition of building rooftop and parking lot roof solar photovoltaics (PV). As previously stated above and discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.7, p. 4.7- 22, the City cannot assure that the federal government will agree to add PV features to the federally-approved Project design. The City has added the following mitigation measure to the Final EIR, but notes that because it cannot compel the federal government to implement the mitigation, the Project’s GHG impact will remain significant and unavoidable. GHG MM-4 The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-130 • The Sierra Club suggests the addition of fast charge Level 3 EV charging facilities that are accessible to the public. The Sierra Club does not provide evidence that this feature would reduce GHG emissions from the Project. Electric vehicles (EV) would still be welcome at the Project site regardless of whether there are Level 3 EV chargers. Further, the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Title 24 requires the installation of raceway to EV designated spaces, and not the charging units themselves. The following is required by CALGreen, effective January 1, 2023: o Title 24, Section 5.106.5.2: Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2.12 o Title 24, Section 5.106.5.3: EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). 12 In accordance with CALGreen requirements and as shown on DEIR Figure 3-1, Overall Conceptual Site Plan, the Project provides for 29 future EVSC+S and Clean Air parking stalls. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require green building measures that exceed Title 24 standards by at least 25%. This suggestion is rejected because CALGreen’s Title 24 goes through an update and approval process every three years by the California Energy Commission and the changes are subsequently ratified by the California Building Standards Commission to become State law. The most recent approved updates consist of the 2022 Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2023. Each update of Title 24 ensures a higher level of energy efficiency than the prior version. The State assures that CALGreen standards provide a high level of energy efficiency. The Sierra Club does not provide substantial evidence that exceeding CALGreen Title 24 requirements would result in any demonstrable, quantifiable reduction in the Project’s operational air pollutant or GHG emissions. Therefore, consideration of the suggestion is unjustified and rejected as infeasible. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project’s buildings to satisfy LEED Silver or higher standards. The Sierra Club does not provide substantial evidence that achieving LEED Silver standards would result in any demonstrable, quantifiable reduction in the Project’s operational GHG emissions above and beyond mandatory compliance with CALGreen Title 24. CALGreen Therefore, consideration of the suggestion is unjustified. LEED is a program of the United States Green Building Council, with standards for LEED certification similar to the mandatory measures required by CALGreen. 12 CALGreen, Title 24; https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2019JUL21S/chapter-5-nonresidential-mandatory-measures Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-131 • The Sierra Club suggests design features to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) including the addition of transit stops and bicycle parking and storage. As disclosed in DEIR Subsection 2.0, Environmental Setting, p. 2-17, bus service in the Project area is available along Olive Drive via Golden Empire Transit District Route 61. The recommendation for bike racks has already been included in the DEIR as Regulatory Requirement GHG RR-4 on DEIR p. 4.7-22, which specifies the requirement to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. According to Title 24, mandatory measures for non-residential uses include13: o Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (Title 24 Section 5.106.4.1.1). o Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (Title 24 Section 5.106.4.1.2). • The Sierra Club suggests requiring the Project to have net zero energy use. The Sierra Club does not provide any substantial evidence to show that the Project can be feasibly, physically or technologically constructed and operated with net zero energy usage. Therefore, consideration of the suggestion is unjustified. Nonetheless, and as noted above, Mitigation Measure MM GHG-4 has been added to the FEIR to require the installation of rooftop PV to provide power to the building, should the VA approve a design modification to allow installation of rooftop PV. • The Sierra Club suggests a potential mitigation measure of requiring the building to be all electric. This suggestion is rejected due to the need to provide gas service to fulfill the VA / federal government’s design specifications for the building. Additionally, it would not be feasible for the Project to provide the full range of all the needed services to City veterans with only electric power, and no natural gas. The Sierra Club does not provide substantial evidence that powering the building by all electric sources would result in any demonstrable, quantifiable reduction in the Project’s operational air quality and GHG emissions. Further, the Project will be compliant with CALGreen’s Title 24 which assures a high level of energy efficiency in all new construction projects in California. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project Applicant to partially fund an area energy efficiency program, but does not provide a suggestion to a specific program. The City 13 California Green Building Standards Code; https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2019JUL21S/chapter-5- nonresidential-mandatory-measures Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-132 is not aware of any such program in which a fee payment would have proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts and that would result in a demonstrable, quantifiable reduction in the Project’s air pollutant and GHG emissions. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project Applicant to partially subsidize public transportation in nearby communities but does not provide a suggestion to a specific program. The City is not aware of any such program. Further, the City could not assure that a subsidy payment for public transit would actually reduce VMT to and from the Project site, as public transit ridership cannot be assured or enforced by the City’s jurisdictional authority. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project Applicant to retrofit existing buildings with solar PV systems, without making reference to any existing buildings that the Sierra Club suggests be retrofitted, without any verification that the roofs of such unidentified buildings are capable of supporting the weight and technological specifications of solar PV panels and that the electrical rooms of such unidentified buildings are sufficiently sized and equipped to accommodate the additional electrical panels that would be required to run a solar PV system. The City rejects this suggestion because requiring PV solar installations on existing structures that are owned by a third party is not feasible. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City can compel a third party to agree to such an arrangement. However, Mitigation Measure MM GHG-4 has been added to the FEIR to require the installation of rooftop PV on the Project’s building to provide power to the building, should the VA approve a design modification to allow installation of rooftop PV. • The Sierra Club suggests that the Project Applicant contribute funding for solar PV incentives. The City has no jurisdiction or ability to require funding for solar PV incentives. Therefore, consideration of the suggestion is unjustified and rejected as infeasible. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project Applicant to pay a GHG fee to the SJVAPCD to fund a project that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere. The City has no jurisdiction or ability to require a voluntary fee agreement by third parties such as the SJVAPCD. The Project is, however, subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule (ISR)), which requires developers to mitigate NOx and PM emissions from their projects. The proposed Project’s ISR Application was submitted to the SJVAPCD on July 14, 2023. To reduce air pollution emissions, the Sierra Club suggests the following. • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require regular bus routes between the Project and local low-income and minority communities and that carpool opportunities be provided for Project site workers. Regular bus service is already provided in close proximity to the Project Site. As stated in Response D-66, bus service in the Project area is available along Olive Drive via Golden Empire Transit District Route 61. Encouragement and incentives for carpooling would fall within the purview of the building operator (the VA) and not the City of Bakersfield. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-133 • The Sierra Club suggests that the City require the Project applicant to partially subsidize public transportation. The City is not aware of any such subsidy program. Further, the City could not assure that a subsidy payment for public transit would actually reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions from the Project, as public transit ridership cannot be assured or enforced by the City’s jurisdictional authority. • The Sierra Club suggests the potential mitigation measure of zero emission service equipment, without specific reference to any particular type of equipment. If the reference is to landscape maintenance equipment, California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 1346 was enacted in 2021, which bans the sale of gas-powered lawn equipment beginning in 2024.14 Because the Project would not be built and operational until after 2024, it is reasonably expected that any new lawn maintenance service equipment introduced at the Project site would be electric in compliance with the mandatory requirements of AB 1346. The City is unaware of other types of service equipment the Sierra Club may be referring to by this general recommendation. • The Sierra Club suggests that Project site workers should be encouraged to drive low-emission vehicles and that the Project incorporate Level 3 fast charging stations. As indicated above in the second bullet point of the Sierra Club’s GHG reduction recommendations, the Project will comply with CALGreen, effective January 1, 2023, which requires designated parking for clean air vehicles and the installation of empty raceways and electrical system capacity for the future installation of EV chargers. As shown on DEIR Figure 3-1, Overall Conceptual Site Plan, the Project provides for 29 future EVSC+S and Clean Air parking stalls. • The Sierra Club suggests that the Project Applicant enter into a Developer Mitigation Contract (DMC) with the SJVAPCD to reduce air pollutant emissions to net zero. The City has no jurisdiction or ability to require a voluntary fee agreement by third parties such as the SJVAPCD. The Project is, however, subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule (ISR)), which requires developers to mitigate NOx and PM emissions from their projects. The proposed Project’s ISR Application was submitted to the SJVAPCD on July 14, 2023. • The Sierra Club suggests soil testing for Valley Fever. As provided in DEIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, on page 4.6-8, under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant, has no or little vegetative cover due to the disturbed nature of the site, and contains loose and dry topsoil conditions, and thus, has the potential to contribute windblown soil and sand. Development of the Project would result in grading and construction activities which would disturb soils on the property. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. However, any risk of spreading Valley Fever spores would not be increased due to Project construction when compared to existing conditions. The DEIR’s analysis of the potential impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 included any potential risk from Valley Fever spores in the dust particles. As indicated on DEIR page 4.2-20, Project construction activities would not exacerbate the risk of Valley Fever any more than natural wind conditions, and furthermore, it 14 California Assembly Bill 1346. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-134 is a natural condition not caused by the Project. Once the Project is constructed and thus developed/paved, risks from Valley Fever would be substantially reduced as compared to the existing vacant conditions. D-48 Channel Law Group requests that their opinion that the Project is inconsistent with the Site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning, is addressed. The commenter is referred to Response D-12 and Response D-60 for a response and explanation that the Project is consistent with the Site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning classification. D-49 Channel Law Group conflates aircraft noise contours under the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, noise compatibility guidelines given in the MBGP stationary noise sources in sensitive areas, and significance thresholds used in the EIR, to draw a significance conclusion for the topic of noise under CEQA, in an attempt to build an argument that the existing noise environment at the Project site is too loud to establish a medical clinic project. First, CEQA does not require analysis of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project unless the project will exacerbate existing environmental hazards. In the context of this comment, the proposal to establish a community-based outpatient clinic on the Project site would not exacerbate any existing noise impact, and thus the analysis of the impacts of existing noise on the Project is not required under CEQA (see California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369). Further, MBGP Figure VII-1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (MBGP, p. VII-9) establishes that for hospitals and nursing homes (the most similar land use to the Project), a noise environment up to 70 dBA CNEL is acceptable. As disclosed in DEIR Subsection 4.11, Table 4.11-6, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, and Table 4.11-7, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases, ambient noise levels at the measured locations are all below the acceptable level of 70 dBA CNEL. The Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations with ambient noise levels all being below 70 dBA CNEL. The Project would generate nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations, also with ambient noise levels all being below 70 dBA CNEL. Based on the substantial evidence contained in the DEIR and in the technical noise analysis contained in DEIR Technical Appendix H, Project-related noise impacts would be less than significant, included any purported “impacts” of existing ambient noise on the Project. D-50 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR rejected all of the Project alternatives because they were not selected by the VA and thus infeasible, thereby failing to comply with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to study a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenter is incorrect in their assertion that the DEIR does not contain a reasonable range of alternatives. The alternatives discussed in the DEIR represent a reasonable range regardless of the reasons why the alternatives may or may not be dismissed as part of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that will be deliberated upon as part of the FEIR’s certification process. As provided in DEIR Subsection 6.0, Alternatives, the DEIR conducted a thorough analysis of three alternatives to the Project, the No Project Alternative, the Net Zero Alternative, and the Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative. The No Project Alternative considered the scenario in which the Project does not proceed; however, this alternative would fail to meet the Project objectives. Under this alternative, the existing VA clinic Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-135 would continue to operate at the existing facility at 1801 Westwind Drive although it is outdated and does not provide the full suite of services needed by the City’s veterans, who are instead currently traveling outside the Bakersfield area to obtain needed services, resulting in additional impacts on the environment. The Net Zero Alternative considered the development of a VA Clinic on the Project site with a design that would achieve net zero GHG emissions, which would reduce the size of the clinic by 3,648 s.f. and construct a 36,000 s.f. clinic (approximately 9% smaller than the proposed Project at 39,648 s.f.). The Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative considers the development of a VA clinic on the Project site with the same site design as proposed with the Project, but with the addition of a solar system on the building roof, the addition of canopy covers over parking areas equipped with solar panels, and the addition of on-site battery storage such that site operations could be powered without connecting to the electrical grid. The DEIR provides information regarding the alternatives’ abilities to meet Project objectives. Reasons to reject the alternatives, should the City opt to do so, will be provided in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that will be deliberated upon as part of the FEIR’s certification process by the Bakersfield City Council. D-51 Channel Law Group states that the Project’s objectives are too narrowly defined and asserts that the DEIR should have studied alternative sites for the Project that the VA/federal government has already rejected. The federal procurement process conducted by the federal government for this Project defined the geographic boundaries of the area acceptable for the location of the Project. The Project location was selected by the federal government after a long and thorough federal administrative and legal process, which included evaluating all proposals submitted to the Solicitation for Offers, as well as consideration and ultimate rejection of bid protests and associated legal challenges. As such, no alternative sites were feasible for the DEIR to evaluate because the VA had already selected the Project applicant’s proposal, and Project site as its preferred location for the Project. Nonetheless, the No Project Alternative serves as an alternative site analysis because it evaluates continuation of the existing VA clinic at the existing facility at 1801 Westwind Drive in lieu of implementing the Project. D-52 Channel Law Group states that the DEIR rejected each of the on-site Project alternatives presented in the DEIR because they are not the proposed Project and rejected the Net Zero Alternative even though it would meet all of the Project objectives. For clarification, the DEIR provides information regarding the alternatives’ abilities to meet Project objectives, and the Net Zero Alternative would not meet all the Project objectives because of its smaller size, preventing the Project from providing the full suite of services to as many patients/veterans as desired by the VA. Reasons to reject the alternatives, should the City opt to do so, will be provided in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that will be deliberated upon as part of the FEIR’s certification process by the Bakersfield City Council. D-53 Channel Law Group comments that the DEIR rejected the Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative, even though it meets most of the Project objectives. As provided in DEIR Subsection 6.0, Alternatives, the DEIR conducted a thorough analysis of three alternatives to the Project, the No Project Alternative, the Net Zero Alternative, and the Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative. The DEIR provides information regarding the alternatives’ abilities to meet Project objectives. Reasons to reject the alternatives, should the City opt to do so, will be provided in the Findings of Fact Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-136 and Statement of Overriding Considerations that will be deliberated upon as part of the FEIR’s certification process by the Bakersfield City Council. D-54 Channel Law Group states that the Project and alternatives analyses contained in the DEIR should have been presented in a joint CEQA/NEPA document and that the DEIR should have included a Project Alternative that included a lease for the continuation of operations at 1801 Westwind Drive. Related to NEPA compliance, please refer to Response D-7. Related to the request to study an alternative that considers retaining the VA clinic facility at 1801 Westwind Drive, please refer to the DEIR’s discussion of the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing VA clinic would continue to operate at the existing facility at 1801 Westwind Drive although it is outdated and does not provide the full suite of services needed by the City’s veterans, who are instead currently traveling outside the Bakersfield area to obtain needed services. This comment is a retread by the commenter – who represents PBV, the owner of 1801 Westwind Drive – of similar assertions made during the federal bidding and approval process, seeking to “relitigate” a process that has already concluded. As set forth in Attachment J, PBV many attempts to change the VA’s decision regarding the Project award decision, specifically including attempts to convince the VA to award the Project to PBV at the existing location or elsewhere, have been consistently and repeatedly denied. The City has no ability to force the VA to approve the commenter’s (already rejected) proposal to remodel the existing clinic, or any other proposal other than the proposed Project, the sole proposal/project approved by the VA. D-55 Channel Law Group’s concluding comment states that failure to prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA document before the VA’s commitment to a particular Project has inappropriately constrained the range of alternatives considered and rendered the DEIR an improper post-hoc rationalization for a decision already made. While the City cannot force the VA to reconsider its decision, the VA likewise cannot force the City to approve the Project. See Response to Comment D-5. Additionally, please refer to Response D-7, which addresses the Project’s NEPA compliance process. Because the Project required approvals from a federal agency, compliance with NEPA, the federal equivalent of CEQA, applied, and the Project was found to qualify for a NEPA CATEX. Sometimes a joint EIR/EIS can be used to satisfy the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA, but joint documents are not required and furthermore, an EIS was not required under NEPA as explained in Response D-7. D-56 Channel Law Group provided VA’s Review of Site Environmental Information and Recommended NEPA Documentation Form, as Attachment A to their letter. The attachment indicates that a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) be prepared for the Project, which was completed. As indicated in Response D-7, the CATEX that this Project is relying on is (included as Attachment C to this FEIR) the legally compliant and adequate NEPA compliance document for the Project. D-57 Channel Law Group attached a letter from Soluri Meserve (Attachment B), dated March 1, 2021, which was previously submitted to the City in support of an appeal to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously prepared for the Project. Approvals of the MND, having SCH No 2020120042, and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102, were rescinded, and an EIR, having SCH No. 2022080337, was prepared in an effort to ensure that all of the Project’s potential impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-137 and mitigated in full compliance with CEQA. Although the letter is not directly commenting on the DEIR, responses are provided below. D-58 Soluri Meserve commented that PBV owns the existing VA Clinic, has several other available properties in the City of Bakersfield which are more suitable locations for the VA Clinic, and requests the City Council to grant the appeal, determine that the MND is inadequate, determine that the Site Plan approval was improperly issued, and require further review of the Project’s environmental impacts. This comment is no longer applicable. The MND, having SCH No 2020120042, which was approved by the City’s Planning Commission on January 7, 2021, and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102, approved by the City’s Development Services Director on January 8, 2021, were rescinded, and an EIR, having SCH No. 2022080337, was prepared in an effort to avoid further litigation and to ensure that all of the Project’s potential impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated. See also, Response to Comment D-54 regarding alternative sites. D-59 Soluri Meserve stated that the City failed to provide PBV with notice of the SPR application, Notice of Preparation of the MND, or other City actions on the previous project. This comment is no longer applicable because the MND has been rescinded. The Notice of Preparation of an EIR was released on August 11, 2022, pertaining to the current Project to notify agencies, organizations, and interested parties that the City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency, was preparing an EIR for the newly submitted Project and to request input regarding the scope and content of the EIR. D-60 Soluri Meserve asserted that the Applicant provided an inaccurate project description and incorrectly determined that the proposed use is allowed by right in a M-2 zone. The commentor was incorrect because the M-2 zone permits all of the uses permitted by the M-1 zone, and in turn, all uses permitted by the C-O, C-1 and C-2 zone15. The C-O zone permits, by right, “[m]edical, dental, psychiatric and other health practitioner offices and clinics, including chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy and blood banks,” which City staff has properly determined includes the Project16. Notably, this use description expressly includes psychiatric clinics as part of the overall permitted use, contrary to PBV’s arguments that mental health services somehow trigger a CUP. The C-O zone also permits “medical and dental laboratories17” and “pharmacies, in conjunction with medical clinics.18” Of note, the existing clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive does not have a CUP. Medical (and psychiatric) clinics and offices are not specifically defined in the City’s Municipal Code, but the City has consistently interpreted “[m]edical, dental, psychiatric and other health practitioner offices and clinics” to mean a medical use where a patient receives outpatient medical care, as opposed to overnight stays. The previous project and current Project have not been inaccurately described to fit this definition – the Project would only be open from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and closed all nights and 15 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.30.020(A) [M-2 permits “[a]ny use permitted in the M-1 zone”]; Section 17.28.020(A) [M-1 zone permits “[a]ny use permitted in the C-O, C-1 and C-2 zones”]; Section 17.28.020(A) [M-1 zone permits “[a]ny use permitted in the C-O, C-1 and C-2 zones”]. https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. 16 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.20.020(A)(21). https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. 17 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.20.020(A)(22): https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. 18 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.20.020(A)(25): https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-138 weekends. City staff’s interpretation of its own zoning code, which it is charged with implementing, is entitled to significant deference19. Nonetheless, because a CUP is required for “[c]linics, hospitals, sanitariums or other buildings for contagious, mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” in the M-1 zone20, PBV contends that a CUP was required here. However, the term “sanitarium hospital” is specifically defined in the City’s Municipal Code as “any institution, place, building or agency which maintains and operates organized facilities for diagnosis, care and treatment of human illness, including convalescence and including care during and after pregnancy or which maintains and operates organized facilities for any such purpose and to which persons may be admitted for overnight stay or longer. Hospital includes nursing home, maternity home and lying-in asylum.21” Contrary to PBV’s arguments, and as made plain by the foregoing definition, a CUP is required for any medical use that involves an overnight stay, not a medical clinic that operates only during business hours. PBV’s attempts to focus on the Municipal Code’s use of the terms “mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” ignores the proceeding clause, which discusses those types of cases in the context of hospitals and sanitariums20. As a result, the reference to “contagious, mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” clearly refers to facilities where patients suffering from those ailments stay overnight (i.e., sober living facilities), particularly when considering that the permitted use “[m]edical, dental, psychiatric and other health practitioner offices and clinics” specifically includes psychiatric clinics and offices, demonstrating that mental health services do not automatically trigger the need for a CUP. Further, the use of the word “contagious” also shows that the phrase “contagious, mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” cannot mean that all uses that treat such cases require a CUP – if that was true, no medical clinic or office would be permitted by right, as all such clinics inevitably treat contagious diseases. Whether or not a medical use involves an overnight stay is critical distinction that the City staff has consistently drawn between a permitted “[m]edical, dental, psychiatric and other health practitioner offices and clinics” and “[c]linics, hospitals, sanitariums or other buildings for contagious, mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” requiring a CUP. As pointed out by City staff, this interpretation dates back to at least 1991, when the existing VA clinic was approved for the PBV’s property, then zoned M-1, and no CUP was required. Given that the proposed Project and the existing VA clinic are substantially the same use, this further emphasizes the both the weakness and the disingenuous nature of the commenter’s arguments. Further, the City’s distinction based upon overnight stays is also supported by sound logic, because the entire purpose of requiring a CUP is to mitigate potential impacts of uses that have more impacts on surrounding properties than uses permitted by right. Obviously, facilities open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, like hospitals, have far more impacts than those only open 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Finally, it bears noting that, while the Project complies with the City’s Municipal Code and all applicable City regulations, there is an argument that, as lessor to the federal government, the Project 19 See, e.g., City of Walnut Creek v. Cty. of Contra Costa (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1020; MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 219. 20 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.28.030(A)(6): https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. 21 Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 17.04.340. https://bakersfield.municipal.codes/Code. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-139 is not required to comply with City zoning requirements 22. Under federal law, the VA is only required to consider local substantive land use and zoning laws23. Local officials may recommend measures necessary to satisfy local zoning and building ordinances, but the VA is not bound to comply with the recommendations24. However, here, the Project applicant has agreed to comply with all City regulations, zoning and otherwise. D-61 Soluri Meserve commented that the site plan and related conditions did not adequately address access and fire safety concerns. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, a Site Plan Review (SPR) application is submitted to the Site Plan Review Committee which consists of the Planning Director, Building Director, Fire Chief, and Public Works Director, or their designated representatives. The plans are required to be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the Project. SPR No. 20-0102 was approved by the Development Services Director on January 8, 2021 and on February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously rejected the appeal of the SPR brought by PBV; however, on July 14, 2021, the SPR was rescinded, so that an EIR could be prepared. The current site plan, SPR No 21-0399, will be subject to the same site plan review and approval process to ensure compliance with all access and fire safety regulations, to the satisfaction of the City’s subject matter experts. D-62 Soluri Meserve commented that the previously approved SPR failed to condition on and off-site improvements and road dedications necessary to the Project. This comment is no longer applicable. Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 was rescinded on July 14, 2021, so that an EIR could be prepared for the Project. The current Project includes all required on-site and off-site roadway improvements to service the Project. D-63 Soluri Meserve commented that the MND did not meet minimum CEQA standards. This comment is no longer applicable. The MND, having SCH No 2020120042, which was approved by the City’s Planning Commission on January 7, 2021, and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102, approved by the City’s Development Services Director on January 8, 2021, were rescinded, and an EIR, having SCH No. 2022080337, was prepared in an effort to avoid further litigation and to ensure that all of the Project’s potential impacts are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated. New technical reports, prepared in association with the EIR and new SPR No. 21-0399, were released for public review along with the EIR and posted on the State Clearinghouse website on May 5, 202325. D-64 Soluri Meserve listed several exhibits and provided a weblink for the entire letter and exhibits. This comment is acknowledged. No response is needed. D-65 Channel Law Group provided an undated Sierra Club, Kern Kaweah Chapter, NOP letter as Attachment C, which begins with a brief Project summary. No response is required. The NOP comment 22 See, e.g., Thanet Corp. v. Bd. Of Adjustment (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1969) 249 A.2d 31, affd. (N.J. App. Div. 1969) 260 A.2d 1. 23 (40 U.S.C. § 3312(c); see also 41 C.F.R. § 102-76.20(c). 24 (40 U.S.C. §§ 3312(e), (f). 25 State Clearinghouse website, Veteran’s Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Medical Clinic Project EIR, SCH No. 2022080337, posted May 5, 2023. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080337/2 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-140 letter was included as part of DEIR Technical Appendix A and summarized in DEIR Table 1-1, Summary of NOP Comments (DEIR pp. 1-5 and 1-6). D-66 Sierra Club requests that a GHG study be conducted and provides several potential mitigation measures. An analysis of GHG emissions was conducted by Trinity Consultants and entitled “Small Project Analysis Level Assessment, VA Community Outpatient Clinic, Bakersfield, CA,” The study is dated April 2023, and is included as Technical Appendix B in the DEIR. As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the analysis determined that the Project would generate approximately 946.85 MT CO2e (83.15 net new MT CO2e) annual GHG emissions, which is significant on a cumulatively-considerable basis based on the City’s highly conservative net zero threshold of significance. After the City’s consideration of various possible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to net zero, the City determined that no other feasible mitigation measures with a proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts and that are within the City of Bakersfield’s authority to assure could measurably reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, for several reasons. Most notably, the City cannot compel the federal government to make physical modifications to the Project’s building design because the design was approved by the federal government as part of the already concluded federal procurement process. As a result, the City cannot assure that the federal government will agree to make changes to the Project’s design, as it would conflict with the design specifications approved by the VA / federal government. It should be noted, however, that the federal requirements do include, and the Project will incorporate, various environmental sustainability features that will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, although based on the limitations of computer models to calculate GHG emission reductions as a result of these features, those reductions were not specifically quantified as part of the DEIR. Responses to the suggested individual mitigation measures presented in the Sierra Club’s NOP comment letter are provided in Response D-47, and the FEIR is including new Mitigation Measure GHG-4 requiring rooftop solar if approved by the VA, described therein. The commenter is referred to Response D-47. D-67 The Sierra Club discussed broad air pollution issues in the San Joaquin Valley, states that the EIR must thoroughly address the issue of air pollution, and suggests several methods to reduce air quality impacts. Responses to the commenter’s suggested individual mitigation measures are provided in Response D-47. The commenter is referred to Response D-47. D-68 The Sierra Club comments that the EIR must thoroughly discuss a range of alternatives to the Project including an Existing Veterans Clinic Alternative. As stated in DEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on pp. 6-4 and 6-5, the VA issued a Solicitation for Offers for the VA Clinic and evaluated the four proposals that were received, two of which included renovation of the existing VA Clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive which were not selected. It is beyond the jurisdictional scope and authority of the City of Bakersfield as the CEQA lead agency to evaluate other sites that have not been offered to or selected by the VA, particularly those that have been rejected after a long and thorough federal administrative and legal process, specifically including remodeling and rebuilding a clinic on the existing site at 1801 Westwind Drive. As such, no alternative sites are feasible because the VA has already selected the Project applicant’s proposal and Project site as the preferred location for the Project, and an alternative sites analysis is thus not required in the EIR. Nonetheless, the DEIR’s discussion of the No Project Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-141 Alternative evaluates retaining the VA clinic at its existing location, which constitutes an alternative site. D-69 The Sierra Club provided a cumulative list of several current new and/or proposed projects within the Highway 99 area and requests that the cumulative impacts of these projects be addressed. As stated in DEIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b) describes two acceptable methods for identifying a study area for purposes of conducting a cumulative impact analysis. These two approaches include: 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency (‘the list of projects approach’), or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (‘the summary of projections approach’). The summary of projections approach was used in the EIR because there were no known projects with proposed General Plan Amendments or zoning designation changes within an approximately 3.0-mile radius of the Project site, and projects that are General Plan-conforming and zone-conforming fall within the assumptions of jurisdictions’ General Plans and their associated CEQA compliance documents as well as the Kern COG future model for the evaluation of transportation effects. That said, the following transportation improvement project near the Project site that is planned and approved but not yet funded and constructed was specifically considered due to proximity. • Hageman Flyover: This 1.5-mile Caltrans District 6 project includes the planned construction of a four-lane road from Hageman Road and Knudsen Drive to Golden State Avenue, including a new bridge over the railroad line and SR-99 freeway. The project includes widening of the bridge over Airport Drive and modifying ramps at the Airport Drive/Golden State Avenue interchange. The project also includes a bike route across SR-99. An EIR for this project was prepared and certified by Caltrans having SCH No. 2014011036. The Hangman Flyover project is recognized in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element. The summary of projections approach plus Hageman Flyover project methodology was determined to be appropriate by the City of Bakersfield because the City of Bakersfield and Kern County (unincorporated) long-range planning documents contain a sufficient amount of information to enable an analysis of cumulative effects for all subject areas evaluated in this EIR. D-70 The Sierra Club comments that many sensitive and special status species have historically occurred in the Project vicinity and that the EIR should require pre-construction surveys, investigate whether the Project site contains foraging and/or nesting habitat for the Swainson’s hawk, consider reintroducing native plant species, and address San Joaquin kit fox relocation. The DEIR analyzed biological resources based on a technical report prepared by McCormick Biological, Inc. titled “Biological Evaluations for VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California,” dated December 2022. The technical report documented biological resources identified during the literature review and reconnaissance-level survey that was conducted within the Project site to identify the potential for special-status resources to be present, identified potential impacts to those Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-142 resources due to the proposed Project, and recommended avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during Project activities. As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.3, Biological Resources, on pages 4.3-7 and 4.3-8, the Project site contains suitable habitat for Crotch bumble bee, burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. With implementation of mitigation measures BIO MM-1 through BIO MM-7, provided on pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-17 of the DEIR, the Project’s potential impacts to Crotch bumble bee, burrowing owl, SJKF, and American badger would be reduced to less than significant. D-71 The Sierra Club comments that the DEIR should include a comprehensive traffic study, analyzing the Project’s cumulative traffic impacts on Highway 99 and other area roads, and requests that the full trip be included when analyzing trip based VMT, even if it goes beyond a jurisdictional boundary. Analysis of Transportation, in DEIR Subsection 4.13, was based on technical report prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers (R&S), entitled, “Traffic Study, VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, Knudsen Drive, Bakersfield, California,” dated February 2023, and included as Technical Appendix I in the EIR. The detailed VMT analysis was conducted using the KernCOG travel demand model. As shown on page 4.12-4 of the DEIR, the Project VMT/employee of 12.0 is less than the countywide significance threshold of 14.56 VMT/employee. This analysis is highly conservative and overstates actual impacts because it does not “net out” the VMT that will be eliminated when the VA clinic’s current location on Westwind Drive closes when the Project begins operations. Further, the proposed Project would actually reduce overall VMT in the area because the proposed VA community-based outpatient clinic is programmed to provide medical services not currently offered at the current location on Westwind Drive (in addition to replacing the same services offered at the existing facility), which will allow veterans to receive local care and eliminate long drives to other VA facilities in distant geographic areas to receive medical care. Therefore, the VMT associated with the Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-143 Comment Letter e State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, California 93710 (559) 243-4005 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 June 30, 2023 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93308 Subject: Veteran Affairs Medical Clinic (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2022080337 Dear Louis Ramirez: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Bakersfield for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW would appreciate if you would still consider our comments. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-1 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-144 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield June 30, 2023 Page 2 proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required. Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird). PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: SASD Development Group, LLC Objective: The Project entails a proposed Site Plan for the development of a 39,648 square foot medical outpatient facility. Other features include a covered drop-off, bicycle racks, a covered ambulatory pick-up area, an outdoor physical therapy area, an outdoor dining area, and an elevated loading dock. Landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the site, around the building, and throughout the parking areas. In addition, a healing garden is proposed on the east side of the building, which would include a garden path and benches. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Bakersfield in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project. There are special-status species that have been observed in the Project area and may be present at the Project Site. These resources may need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities or land use changes. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In order to adequately assess any potential impact to biological resources, focused biological surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any special-status species may be present within the Project area. Properly conducted biological surveys, and the DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-2 E-1(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-145 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield June 30, 2023 Page 3 information assembled from them, are essential to identify any mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures and/or the need for additional or protocol-level surveys, and to identify any Project-related impacts under CESA and other species of concern. I. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? COMMENT 1: San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) BIO MM-4 states that pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) will be conducted by a “professional” biologist. According to the “Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin kit fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance” all surveys and monitoring need to be performed by a qualified biologist (USFWS 2011). CDFW recommends changing the measure to prevent inadvertent take of the species. BIO MM-5 states that “If California or Federal listed threatened or endangered species are found occupying burrows, dens, or nests on the Project site or any such species could be injured or killed due to Project related activities, the CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) shall be contacted for further guidance.” If an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) has not been acquired and SJKF are detected on the project site, all Project related activities must be stopped and CDFW must be notified in order to acquire an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) to prevent inadvertent take of species and prior to work at the Project Site resuming. According to CNDDB there are multiple recorded instances of San Joaquin kit fox less than one mile from the Project site (CDFW 2023); there is a robust and well studied urban population of SJKF within the City of Bakersfield. Any ground-disturbing or Project related activities have the potential to impact SJKF. Loose friable soils created as a result of Project related activities could potentially attract SJKF after any pre-construction surveys have been completed. CDFW strongly recommends pursuing an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) to prevent inadvertent take of species in advance of any Project construction. COMMENT 2: Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) The DEIR does not specifically address Swainson's hawk (SWHA) in any of its measures. The City of Bakersfield is within the habitat range of SWHA and any trees within 0.5 mile of the Project site could be potential nest sites (CDFW 2023). BIO-MM-5 generally addresses nests of any threatened or endangered species, but these measures do not propose surveys that are adequate for detection of SWHA. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-3 E-4 E-2(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-146 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield June 30, 2023 Page 4 CDFW recommends referencing our NOP comment letter sent October 18, 2022 regarding survey protocols for SWHA. If SWHA are detected during these surveys CDFW recommends pursuing an ITP prior to ground-disturbing activities, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b). II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals. FILING FEES If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Bakersfield in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources. More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions, please contact Jaime Marquez, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, or by electronic mail at Jaime.Marquez@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Julie A. Vance Regional Manager ec: See Page Five DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-5 E-6 E-4(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-147 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield June 30, 2023 Page 5 ec: State Clearinghouse Governor’s Office of Planning and Research state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Jaime Marquez California Department of Fish and Wildlife DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-6(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-148 Louis Ramirez City of Bakersfield June 30, 2023 Page 6 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed June 13, 2023. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Standard Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2011. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2A77E5AB-7F3B-4E99-AC46-443A780F52DF E-6(CONT.) Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-149 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER E: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) E-1 CDFW provides introductory remarks, summarizes their role as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, informs the City of the CDFW’s jurisdiction over nesting birds, and provides a brief Project summary. These general, factual comments are acknowledged. E-2 CDFW comments that there are special status species that may be present on the Project site, including the San Joaquin kit fox and the State threatened Swainson’s hawk, and that focused biological surveys should be conducted to determine if any special status species may be present within the Project area. All required biological survey work has been conducted, with the results presented in the DEIR and this FEIR. CDFW is referred to DEIR Subsection 4.3, Biological Resources, DEIR Technical Appendix C., Biological Evaluation, and FEIR Attachment H, Biological Resources Response to Comments and Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Results Letter. Specific to San Joaquin kit fox and Swainson’s hawk, the technical report prepared by McCormick Biological, Inc. titled “Biological Evaluations for VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California,” dated December 2022, and included as DEIR Technical Appendix C, documents the literature review and reconnaissance-level surveys that were conducted within the Project area to identify the potential for special-status resources to be present. DEIR Subsection 4.3 identifies potential impacts to biological resources due to the proposed Project, and sets forth avoidance and minimization mitigation measures for implementation prior to and during Project construction activities. As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.3, the Project site contains suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. With implementation of mitigation measures BIO MM-1 through BIO MM-7, provided on pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-17 of the DEIR, the Project’s potential impacts to these species would be reduced to less than significant. Pertaining to the potential presence of Swainson’s hawk, refer to Technical Appendix C, page 25. As stated, there is marginal foraging habitat on the Project site and no suitable nesting habitat. In the unforeseen event that this species is nesting near the site, mandatory compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and adherence to mitigation measure BIO MM-2 would ensure that impacts from the Project are less than significant. BIO MM-2 has been expanded in the FEIR to address recommended survey protocol for Swainson’s hawk. Given the large range of the species from the Sacramento Valley through Central and South America, the loss of foraging habitat on the Project site is less than significant. BIO MM-2 ….sensitivity of the nest areas. Specific to Swainson’s hawk, if the Project’s vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbance construction activity will commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall follow survey methodology developed by the species’ SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). If Swainson’s hawk is nesting within one-half mile of the Project site, construction activities many not commence unless an ITP is obtained from the CDFW or until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-150 E-3 CDFW recommends that the text of BIO MM-4 be revised from stating “professional biologist” to “qualified biologist.” Although this wording change was not made in the Final EIR, the City will ensure that the Project’s conditions of approval clarify that the professional biologist must be qualified to conduct the survey work. CDFW also states that if an incidental take permit (ITP) has not been required and San Joaquin kit fox are detected on the Project site, all Project related activities must be stopped and CDFW contacted, and because there have been multiple records of the San Joaquin kit fox within one-mile of the Project site, CDFW recommends pursuing an ITP. CDFW is referred to mitigation measure BIO MM-5 for the detailed mitigation measure concerning the potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox. Also, CDFW’s recommendation is already required under mitigation measure BIO MM-7, part p), which requires CDFW to be immediately notified if any suspected federally or State protected plant or animal species is found to be present during Project-related construction activities. E-4 CDFW comments that the DEIR does not specifically address Swainson’s hawk in any of the mitigation measures and suggests that protocol surveys be conducted. As indicated in Response to Comment E-3, BIO MM-2 has been expanded in the FEIR to address recommended pre-construction survey protocol for Swainson’s hawk, even though qualified biologists at McCormick Biological, Inc. have determined that there is no reasonable possibility of the species to nest near the Project site. Qualified biologists from McCormick Biological, Inc. who are experienced with Swainson’s hawk identification frequent the area within a two-mile radius of the Project site several times per week and have done so for several years. None of McCormick Biological, Inc’s. staff have recorded any incidental sightings of Swainson’s hawk in a two-mile radius of the Project site during any season and although individuals may pass through during migration, the qualified biologists have never observed any individuals. The office of McCormick Biological, Inc. is located approximately 2.0 miles from the Project site and as such, qualified biologists from McCormick Biological, Inc. have driven by the Project site every week for approximately the past 10 years (Randi McCormick, 2023). E-5 CDFW requests the reporting of any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys be reported to CNDDB. The comment is acknowledged and the Project’s biologists at McCormick Biological, Inc. have been requested to submit the requested information. E-6 CDFW provides information on filing fees associated with the posting of a CEQA Notice of Determination. The fees are acknowledged and will be paid as required. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-151 F.3 ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, AND REVISIONS TO THE DEIR Substantive changes made to the text, tables, and/or exhibits of the DEIR in response to public comments are itemized in Table F-2, Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR. Additions are shown in Table F-2 as underline text and deletions shown as stricken text. Minor changes to the DEIR (e.g., corrections of non-substantive typographical errors) are not listed in Table F-2. No corrections or additions made to the DEIR are considered substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR S-28; 4.7-22 S.0, Executive Summary; 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Based on comment from SJVAPCD, the following mitigation measure was added to the Final EIR: GHG-4 The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. S-8; 4.2-26 S.0, Executive Summary; 4.2, Air Quality Based on comment from SJVAPCD, the following regulatory requirement was added to the Final EIR: AIR-RR-2 The Project is required to be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules, including but not limited to the following: a. SJVAPCD Rule 4601, Architectural Coatings, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. b. SVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants and other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. c. SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, which limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-152 Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR 3-3 3.0, Project Description Based on comment from SJVAPCD, the following have been added to Table 3-1: • Approve Stationary Source Permits (if such permits are required). • Approve a Dust Control Plan 4.1-16 4.1, Aesthetics The following change has been made to the Aesthetics section: • Screening of Storage Areas. The M-2 zone regulations require that any open storage areas be surrounded and screened by a wall or fence. A low masonry wall with green screen above is proposed around the loading dock and trash enclosure area on the southeastwest facing side of the building. 4.3-12 4.3, Biological Resources Two mitigation measures have been revised to extend a timing requirement. BIO MM-1 Surveys to detect burrowing owls shall be conducted by a professional biologist in consultation with CDFW no more than 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities on the Project site and can be conducted concurrently with the pre- activity surveys required per BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3 and BIO MM-4. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 September 15) unless a professional biologist verifies…. BIO MM-2 If vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbing construction activity occurs during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31 September 15) a professional avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey…. 4.3-13 4.3, Biological Resources A mitigation measure was expanded as recommended by the CDFW. BIO MM-2 ….sensitivity of the nest areas. Specific to Swainson’s hawk, if the Project’s vegetation clearing or initial ground- disturbance construction activity will commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall follow survey methodology developed by the species’ SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). If Swainson’s hawk is nesting within one-half mile of the Project site, construction activities shall not commence unless an ITP is obtained from the CDFW or until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. S-3; 3-5; S.0, Executive Summary; 3.0, Project Description; The following addition has been made to the Project Objectives: Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-153 Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR 6-6 and 6-23 6.0, Alternatives E. Develop a modern, state of the art VA medical clinic that is capable of providing a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, such as audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the Bakersfield area for these services. 6-5 6.0, Alternatives The following addition has been made to the Alternatives Section: Furthermore, even completely setting aside the federal bid selection process, no significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location. None of the Project’s impacts – and in particular, its sole significant impact, GHG emissions – are due to where the Project is located, or would be reduced in a different location. Instead, the same Project located anywhere in the City would have identical GHG impacts to the proposed Project on the Project Site. Thus, on this independent basis, further consideration of an alternative site was not warranted. (See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) [“Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR”]). F.4 NO RECIRCULATION OF DEIR REQUIRED CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 describes the conditions under which a DEIR that was circulated for public review is required to be re-circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that new information added to a DEIR is not significant unless the DEIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: 1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; 3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; and/or 4. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Based on the comment letters received by the City of Bakersfield and the responses thereto (presented in Subsection F.2, above) and the minor revisions made to the DEIR (presented in SubsectionF.3, above), there Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page F-154 were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis presented in the DEIR that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental effects that were disclosed in the DEIR. The minor revisions to the DEIR merely clarified and amplified information that was already disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, the DEIR was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the DEIR were supported by evidence provided within the DEIR or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the DEIR did not identify any alternatives to the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project while still attaining the Project’s basic objectives. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Changed Pages of the Draft EIR Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page S-3 • South: West on E. Brundage Lane, continuing on Brundage Lane to the intersection of Brundage Lane and SR-99. • West: The intersection of Gosford Road and White Lane, north to where Gosford Road becomes Coffee Road, north to Olive Drive. B. Establish a new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic that has a minimum size of 30,100 net usable square feet, and meets the VA’s physical design requirements. C. Provide high quality patient care for veterans in a safe, advanced-care medical facility throughout the Bakersfield area and surrounding communities. D. Enable veterans to receive health care at a medical facility that is easily accessible and nearby a State highway system to reduce out of area health trips. E. Develop a modern, state of the art VA medical clinic that is capable of providing a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, such as audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the Bakersfield area for these services. F. Create a comprehensively planned, advanced-care VA medical clinic that provides community vitality, economic growth, and employment opportunities in the City of Bakersfield. G. Construct a VA medical clinic with maximum operational efficiency to optimize health care outcomes and create a space for increased patient and staff satisfaction. S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Substantive issues raised in response to this EIR’s NOP are summarized in Table 1-1 in Section 1.0, Introduction. Based on comments received in response to the NOP, concerns were raised regarding potential impacts to the environment pertaining to the topics of: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation. No other areas of concern or controversy related to environmental effects were identified pertaining to the proposed Project, beyond the comments summarized in Table 1-1. Based on the Project’s background (refer to Subsection 1.3 in Section 1.0, Introduction), a controversial item associated with the Project expressed by the owner of the building at 1801 Westwind Drive (where the VA’s outpatient clinic is currently located), is alternative site locations for the proposed Project. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page S-8 THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS (RR) RESPONSIBLE PARTY MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE can be reduced by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. b. Related to operational emissions, NOX emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project’s operational baseline NOX emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PM10 emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. AIR-RR-2: The Project is required to be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules, including but not limited to the following: a. SJVAPCD Rule 4601, Architectural Coatings, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. b. SVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants and other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. c. SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, which limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page S-28 THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS (RR) RESPONSIBLE PARTY MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE list to the City’s Development Services Director confirming that the equipment used is compliant. GHG MM-2: Construction contractors shall assure that hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers used for construction are electric-powered and shall designate an area of the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge. The City of Bakersfield shall verify the location of the designated charging area in association with grading and building permit issuance. Construction contractors City of Bakersfield or its designee Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to issuance of a building permit, and during construction GHG MM-3: Project construction contractors shall tune and maintain all construction equipment in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. Maintenance records for all pieces of equipment shall be kept on-site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City of Bakersfield or its designee. GHG-4: The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. Construction contractors City of Bakersfield or its designee Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to issuance of a building permit, and during construction Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 3-3 3.2 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED APPROVAL ACTIONS The City of Bakersfield has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City of Bakersfield serves as the Lead Agency for this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The role of the Lead Agency was previously described in Section 1.0 of this EIR. As part of the approval process for the proposed Project, the City’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR and proposed Site Plan Review No. 21-0399. The Planning Commission will make a decision to certify or reject the Final EIR with or without modifications. Should the Planning Commission’s decision be appealed, the Final EIR would be considered by the City Council, to be certified or rejected. Following certification of the Final EIR, the City’s Development Services Director will decide whether to approve Site Plan Review No. 21- 0399. Should these actions be approved, additional discretionary and ministerial actions by the City and other agencies would be required to implement the Project. Table 3-1, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, lists the authorities and agencies that are expected to use this EIR and provides a summary of subsequent actions associated with the Project. This EIR covers all federal, State, and local government and quasi-governmental approvals which may be needed to construct and implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-1 or elsewhere in this EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(d)). Table 3-1 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Bakersfield Discretionary Approvals Planning Commission • Certify or reject the Project’s EIR. Development Services Director • Approve, conditionally approve, or not approve Site Plan Review No. 21-0399. Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals Development Services Director • Approve, conditionally approve, or not approve any subsequent Site Plan Reviews or modifications thereto pertaining to the Project site. Development Services Department and Public Works Department • Issue grading permits. • Issue building permits. • Accept public right-of-way dedications. • Approve road improvement plans. • Issue encroachment permits. Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs • Approve facility operations. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit. • Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District • Approve permits to construct and permit to operate (if such permits are required). • Approve Stationary Source Permits (if such permits are required). • Approve a Dust Control Plan Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 3-5 D. Enable veterans to receive health care at a medical facility that is easily accessible and nearby a State highway system to reduce out of area health trips. E. Develop a modern, state of the art VA medical clinic that is capable of providing a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, such as audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the Bakersfield area for these services. F. Create a comprehensively planned, advanced-care VA medical clinic that provides community vitality, economic growth, and employment opportunities in the City of Bakersfield. G. Construct a VA medical clinic with maximum operational efficiency to optimize health care outcomes and create a space for increased patient and staff satisfaction. 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Project Applicant proposes to develop 10.05 gross acres located at 5512 Knudsen Drive, approximately 0.15-mile west of State Route 99 (SR-99) and 250 feet southeast of the intersection of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive with a community-based outpatient medical clinic for lease by the VA. The proposed clinic would be a single-story facility that would provide primary and specialty care clinical services. Services would include audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services. The proposed gross building floor area is 39,648 s.f. with a net usable area of 30,100 s.f. The building is designed to feature a covered drop-off, bicycle racks, a covered ambulatory pick-up area, an outdoor physical therapy area, an outdoor dining area, and an elevated loading dock. The structure would have a maximum height of 31 feet. The building is designed in a contemporary style and would be painted shades of white, gray and blue. Sloped high roofs and glass curtain walls would be featured at the main entrance. The proposed Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 application submitted to the City of Bakersfield to entitle the Project for development is described below. An illustration of the proposed, resulting development concept is provided in Figure 3-1, Overall Conceptual Site Plan. The principal approval action requested of the City of Bakersfield to implement the Project includes a Site Plan Review for the VA community-based outpatient medical clinic, as described herein. Additional discretionary and administrative actions that would be necessary to implement the Project are listed in Table 3-1. A full set of Project application materials are on file with the City of Bakersfield, Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 3.5.1 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-0399 Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code §17.08.060, the approval of a Site Plan is required for uses in the M- 2 zone. Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 is a proposed site plan for the development of a VA community-based medical outpatient clinic on the 10.05-acre Project site with a M-2 zoning classification. Refer to Figure 3-1. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 4.1-16 proposed along the perimeter of the Project site. A mix of shade trees, palm trees, small evergreen trees, screen trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be planted along the perimeter. Shade trees, accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be planted in the parking areas. Landscaping, featuring shade trees, small evergreen trees, accent trees, shrubs, perennials, groundcover, and irrigated turf, would also occur at the building entries and around the perimeter of the building. A healing garden is proposed on the northeast side of the building which would include garden paths, benches, screen trees, shade trees, accent trees, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigated turf. • Screening of Storage Areas. The M-2 zone regulations require that any open storage areas be surrounded and screened by a wall or fence. A low masonry wall with green screen above is proposed around the loading dock and trash enclosure area on the southeastwest facing side of the building. • Screening of Rooftop Equipment. The M-2 zone regulations require that any rooftop areas of structures adjacent to properties zoned or designated for residential development be completely screened from view by parapets or other finished architectural features. Although the Project is not adjacent to properties zoned or designated for residential development, property zoned for residential development is located to the southwest of the Project site, at the corner of Basilicata Drive and Knudsen Drive. As such, and according to the Site Plan Review’s proposed architectural elevations, parapets are proposed along the western side of the building’s roofline to provide visual screening of rooftop equipment. 4. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Land Use Element The MBGP Land Use Element goals and policies focus on establishing a built environment that achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual building and sites, encourages high-quality design and landscaping, and minimizes light pollution. Refer to the discussion above regarding Project design, landscaping, and lighting. Streetscape landscaping also is discussed below under Item 6, and light and glare also is discussed below under Threshold (d). 5. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Circulation Element The MBGP Circulation Element discuses providing and maintaining landscaping on both sides and in the median of arterial streets and on both sides of collector streets. The Project site is located west of SR-99 and Landco Drive, south of Olive Drive, east of Knudsen Drive, north of Hageman Road, and north of proposed Street ‘A’. The developer of the Project would install landscaping along the entire perimeter of the Project site during construction of the Project including along the street frontages with Knudsen Drive, Landco Drive, and proposed Street A. As part of construction of the Project, Landco Drive would be extended along the east side of the Project Site and Street A would be constructed along the south side of the Project site to connect Knudsen Drive and Landco Drive. On Knudsen Drive to the west, a left turn lane would be added to southbound Knudsen Drive to eastbound Street A, an additional northbound thru lane would be added, and a deceleration/acceleration lane for vehicles making a right turn in or right turn out of the main Project site entrance. The northbound deceleration/acceleration lane would merge into the northbound thru lane at the north end of the Project site. These proposed improvements are consistent with the MBGP Circulation Element. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 4.2-26 AIR -RR-1 In compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review (ISR)), the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the SJVAPCD, which will identify emission reduction measures for emissions of NOX and PM10. The performance measures listed below can be met through any combination of on-site emission reduction measures or off-site fees. a) Related to construction-related emissions, the exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by the ARB: 20% of the total NOX emissions, and 45% of the total PM10 exhausts emissions. Construction emissions can be reduced by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. b) Related to operational emissions, NOX emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project’s operational baseline NOX emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PM10 emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. AIR-RR-2: The Project is required to be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules, including but not limited to the following: a) SJVAPCD Rule 4601, Architectural Coatings, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. b) SVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants and other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. c) SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, which limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 4.3-12 Threshold d: No Impact. There is no potential for the Project to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites because the Project site does not function as part of a wildlife movement corridor. Threshold e: No Impact. There is no potential for the Project to conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources because no such policies or ordinances are in place that have applicability to the Project site. Threshold f: No impact. 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 because not such plans are in place that have applicability to the Project site. 4.3.7 MITIGATION BIO MM-1 Surveys to detect burrowing owls shall be conducted by a professional biologist in consultation with CDFW no more than 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities on the Project site and can be conducted concurrently with the pre-activity surveys required per BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3 and BIO MM-4. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 September 15) unless a professional biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If burrowing owls are observed using burrows during the surveys, owls shall be excluded from all active burrows through the use of exclusion devices placed in occupied burrows in accordance with CDFW protocols, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, shall be implemented. In such case, exclusion devices shall not be placed until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the burrow, as determined by a professional biologist. Specifically, exclusion devices, utilizing one-way doors, shall be installed in the entrance of all active burrows. The devices shall be left in the burrows for at least 48 hours to ensure that all owls have been excluded from the burrows. Each of the burrows shall then be excavated by hand and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Exclusion shall continue until the owls have been successfully excluded from the site, as determined by a professional biologist. BIO MM-2 If vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbing construction activity occurs during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31 September 15) a professional avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the professional avian biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Biological Resources Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 4.3-13 construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. Specific to Swainson’s hawk, if the Project’s vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbance construction activity will commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall follow survey methodology developed by the species’ SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). If Swainson’s hawk is nesting within one-half mile of the Project site, construction activities shall not commence unless an ITP is obtained from the CDFW or until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. BIO MM-3 Prior to vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbing construction activities, a professional biologist shall conduct a survey to determine the presence of suitable foraging, nesting, or over- wintering habitat for the Crotch bumblebee (CBB) within or immediately adjacent to the work limits. If suitable habitat is present, at least 2 visual surveys shall be conducted by a professional biologist between April 1 and May 30 to detect CBB on or within 100 feet of the work limits prior to vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall target the peak flowering period of CBB preferred nectar plants and shall be conducted by a professional biologist who is familiar with CBB behavior and life history to determine presence/absence of CBB within one year of vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance. CBB individuals shall only be handled for identification if appropriate authorizations are issued. Surveys shall be conducted under suitable conditions for observation of bumble bees. Methods shall be in accordance agency protocols if issued. If no agency protocols have been issued at the time of the surveys, the following survey parameters will be applied: the professional biologist will walk slow (≤2 mph) meandering transects covering all portions suitable habitat within and immediately adjacent to the work limits containing suitable habitat; surveys will be conducted no earlier than 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset, on mostly sunny days with temperature between 65° and 90°F; surveys will not be conducted on cloudy days (≥90% cloud cover) or under wet or windy conditions (≥8 mph). Surveyors will search for bumble bees in flight and potential nest sites. All potential CBB nests found in small mammal burrows, under thatched grasses, brush piles or other suitable ground locations shall be further examined based on observations of entering or exiting CBB. Observations of potential CBB nest sites shall be conducted for no less than 15 minutes per location where CBB are possibly entering/exiting, or a longer period as determined by the professional biologist. If no CBB or their nests are detected, no further measures will be necessary provided that vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance occurs prior to March 1 of the year following the negative survey. If vegetation/initial ground disturbance does not occur before March 1 of the year following the negative survey, the survey shall be repeated following the above procedure. If CBB is found to be present, BIO MM-5 shall apply. BIO MM-4 No more than 30 days prior to vegetation clearing or initial ground-disturbing construction activities, pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox and American badger shall be conducted by a professional biologist. The purpose of the preconstruction survey is to provide Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 4.7-22 GHG MM-4 The building roof shall, upon the approval of a design modification by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible to provide power to the building and given the constraints of applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance requirements. Should the VA not approve a design modification to add a rooftop PV system, the building may be constructed and operated without a PV system. 4.7.8 DESIGN FEATURES AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The City of Bakersfield is required to assure that implementing development complies with the assumptions relied upon herein and applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the topic of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which include the following: GHG RR-4 The building shall be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. The City of Bakersfield shall confirm Title 24 compliance prior to the issuance of building permits. 4.7.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION Threshold a: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. Although the Project’s GHG emissions would only be a very small fraction of the global GHG emissions that contribute to climate change, the City is using a net-zero threshold. Because the Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a cumulatively-considerable basis. After detailed analysis of all possibilities, it has been determined that no other feasible mitigation measures that could further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions exist, for several reasons. First, physical modifications to the Project are not possible because the Project applicant is limited to the design improvements approved by the federal government as part of the already concluded federal procurement process. As a result, the City has no jurisdiction or ability to require adding improvements such as rooftop solar panels, as it would conflict with the Project approved by the VA / federal government. It should be noted, however, that the federal requirements do include, and the Project will incorporate, various “green” features that will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, although to be as conservative as possible, those reductions have not been specifically quantified as part of this EIR. Second, while carbon/GHG credits or offsets existing on certain marketplaces for purchase, recent Court of Appeal decisions have cast considerable doubt on the use of such offsets to mitigate GHG impacts from land use development projects. In light of such uncertainty, the City finds that carbon offsets are not a feasible method for mitigating the Project’s GHG emissions. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 6-5 PBV protested the VA’s determination in several iterations administratively, and in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Case No. 20-1050C. All appeals and challenges were denied, as detailed in the January 7, 2021 decision by the Court of Federal Claims. It is beyond the jurisdictional scope and authority of the City of Bakersfield as the CEQA lead agency to evaluate other sites that have not been offered to or selected by the VA, particularly those that have been rejected after a long and thorough federal administrative and legal process, specifically including remodeling and rebuilding a clinic on the existing site at 1801 Westwind Drive. As such, no alternative sites are feasible because the VA has already selected the Project site for the Project, and an alternative sites analysis is thus not required in this EIR. Furthermore, even completely setting aside the federal bid selection process, no significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location. None of the Project’s impacts – and in particular, its sole significant impact, GHG emissions – are due to where the Project is located, or would be reduced in a different location. Instead, the same Project located anywhere in the City would have identical GHG impacts to the proposed Project on the Project Site. Thus, on this independent basis, further consideration of an alternative site was not warranted. (See, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) [“Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR”]). 6.3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS The discussion on the following pages compares the environmental impacts expected from each alternative considered by the Lead Agency relative to the impacts of the Project. A conclusion is provided for each topic as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction of elimination of the Project’s impact, (2) a greater impact than would occur under the Project, (3) the same impact as the Project, or (4) a new impact in addition to the Project’s impacts. Table 6-1 at the end of this section compares the impacts of the alternatives against those of the Project and identifies the ability of the alternative to meet the basic objectives of the Project. As previously listed in EIR Section 3.0, the Project’s basic objectives are: A. Establish a new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic in Bakersfield on a site that has been vetted by and selected by the U.S. Government within the following delineated area: • North: East on Olive Drive, southeast on Roberts Lane, southeast on Manor Street and then northeast on Panorama Drive to Fairfax Road. • East: South on Fairfax Road to E. Brundage Lane • South: West on E. Brundage Lane, continuing on Brundage Lane to the intersection of Brundage Lane and SR-99. • West: The intersection of Gosford Road and White Lane, north to where Gosford Road becomes Coffee Road, north to Olive Drive. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 6-6 B. Establish a new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic that has a minimum size of 30,100 net usable square feet and meets the VA’s physical design requirements. C. Provide high quality patient care for veterans in a safe, advanced-care medical facility throughout the Bakersfield area and surrounding communities. D. Enable veterans to receive health care at a medical facility that is easily accessible and nearby a State highway system to reduce out of area health trips. E. Develop a modern, state of the art VA medical clinic that is capable of providing a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, such as audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the Bakersfield area for these services. F. Create a comprehensively planned, advanced-care VA medical clinic that provides community vitality, economic growth, and employment opportunities in the City of Bakersfield. G. Construct a VA medical clinic with maximum operational efficiency to optimize health care outcomes and create a space for increased patient and staff satisfaction. 6.3.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative considers a scenario in which the proposed Project does not proceed. In this circumstance, the VA clinic would continue to operate in its existing location at 1801 Westwind Drive and the Project site would remain undeveloped. A. Aesthetics Under the No Project Alternative, the visual character and quality of the Project site would be maintained in its existing condition. No structure, landscaping or lighting would be introduced on the Project site. The Project site does not contain any unique aesthetic resources, nor does it serve as a prominent scenic vista. As such, impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant under both the Project and the No Project Alternative, although impacts would be reduced under the No Project Alternative because no new structures that could interfere with distant views of visual resources would be constructed on the site under the No Project Alternative. There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the Project site’s immediate vicinity; thus, neither the Project nor the No Project Alternative would substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway, and the level of impact would be similar. Because no new development is proposed on site as part of the No Project Alternative, the No Project Alternative would have no potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts due to a conflict with zoning or other regulations would not occur under either the Project or the No Project Alternative, and the level of impact would be similar. Additionally, because no new development would occur on site, the No Project Alternative would not result Veteran’s Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Medical Clinic Project Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Page 6-23 • West: The intersection of Gosford Road and White Lane, north to where Gosford Road becomes Coffee Road, north to Olive Drive. Objective B: Establish a new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic that has a minimum size of 30,100 net usable square feet and meets the VA’s physical design requirements. No No No Objective C: Provide high quality patient care for veterans in a safe, advanced-care medical facility throughout the Bakersfield area and surrounding communities. No Yes Yes Objective D: Enable veterans to receive health care at a medical facility that is easily accessible and nearby a State highway system to reduce out of area health trips. No Yes Yes Objective E: Develop a modern, state of the art VA medical clinic that is capable of providing a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, such as audiology, mental health, telehealth, ambulatory care, an eye clinic, physical and occupational therapy, prosthetics, dental services, a lab and pharmacy, and ancillary and diagnostic services, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the Bakersfield area for these services. No No Yes Objective F: Create a comprehensively planned, advanced-care VA medical clinic that provides community vitality, economic growth, and employment opportunities in the City of Bakersfield. No Yes Yes Objective G: Construct a VA medical clinic with maximum operational efficiency to optimize health care outcomes and create a space for increased patient and staff satisfaction. No No Yes Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Reference Material Supporting the FEIR Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment A: Excerpts from the Government Solicitation for the VA Clinic COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 63 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages and penetrations with architectural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work. Indicate major mechanical, electrical, and other special equipment items; and show chases or shafts. Show framing and support required at those locations. Show locations and sizes of lateral force resisting elements. Submit final design narrative including basis for selection of proposed structural system. Submit calculations for gravity and lateral design. Submit draft specifications for structural materials. C. Architectural Submit completed design development floor plans (minimum 1/8-inch scale) for each floor showing all rooms, room names, room numbers, door locations and swings, smoke and fire rated partitions, and fire extinguisher cabinets. Label departments or services. Show all rooms and chases for mechanical, electrical, and low-voltage (communications) equipment. Show wall thickness and chase walls. Show plumbing fixtures and equipment occupying floor space. Indicate handrails and corner guards. Show column grid with columns indicated. Submit completed equipment plans, elevations (minimum ¼-inch scale), and schedules. List any changes or deviations from Schedule B for review and approval by the Contracting Officer or designee. Any item addressed in SFO but not noted on Schedules B, C, and F shall be considered shell cost items. A/E shall provide equipment planner to coordinate all design issues related to both Contractor-furnished and VA-furnished equipment. Submit completed design development roof plan, exterior elevations, building and wall sections, and key details. Submit room finish, door, and window schedules. Submit general notes, symbol legends, and abbreviations. Submit final design narrative. Submit draft specification sections. D. Interior Design Submit interior design narrative. Discuss information gathered during interior design programming with the VAMC project coordinator and interior designer including, but not limited to the following: interior and exterior design and materials, light, safety, patient profile, customer’s "vision" or desired image, public vs. private spaces, signage, regional influences, etc. Present the preliminary design solution for the primary areas of the project. Use broad categories of materials, finishes, color palettes, patterns, textures, and scales. Include primary and secondary corridors, lobbies, waiting rooms, offices, exam and treatment rooms, and toilet rooms. Discuss the relationship among departments and functions, and between public and private spaces. E. Sustainable Design & Energy Efficiency Submit narrative addressing how the design will meet Federal Mandates for sustainability and energy efficiency. Submit refined ASHRAE 90.1-2013 base-case energy model and as- designed energy model, including all assumptions used, targeting compliance with the 30% COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 64 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages energy reduction goal, or exceeding the goal. Submit refined water use analysis and daylighting calculations. Submit preliminary commissioning specifications. F. Fire Protection/Life Safety Submit completed fire protection narrative. Indicate NFPA 220 and UBC fire resistive rating of the building, NFPA 101 occupancy type, and fire protection code analysis to assess compliance with NFPA 101. Provide information to meet JCAHO requirements, e.g., location of all fire rated barriers, smoke barriers, exit signs, fire extinguishers, manual pull stations, smoke detectors, and sprinkler flow switches. Submit completed design development fire protection plans/drawings illustrating: sprinkler zones, fire alarm zones, smoke zones, building water supply, sprinkler/standpipe riser supply piping, termination of sprinkler main and inspector test drains, sprinkler alarm valves, waterflow and tamper switches, sprinkler system fire department connections, sprinkler design hazards per NFPA 13, exit signs and emergency lighting, fire sprinklers, fire hydrants, fire pumps, post indicator valves, sectional valves, fire extinguisher cabinets, electromagnetic door hold open devices, wall sections indicating fire resistive ratings, and evacuation plan signage. Submit draft specifications for fire alarm and suppression systems. G. Mechanical Submit completed design narrative and calculations for HVAC systems. Include room-by-room, peak zone-by-zone, and building block heating and cooling loads. Discuss selection of HVAC equipment and provide catalog cuts of equipment. Provide room-by-room heating and cooling loads, zone–by-zone heating and cooling loads; and building block heating and cooling loads. Include Psychometric chart for air handling unit, coil entering and leaving conditions, fan motor heat gains, consumption of humidification loads, sound/acoustic analysis. Provide room-by- room air balance charts. Show supply, return, exhaust, make-up, and transfer quantities with intended pressure relationships, i.e., positive, negative, or zero with respect to adjoining spaces. Submit completed design development drawings indicating: main supply, return and exhaust ductwork, volume dampers, fire and smoke partitions, fire and smoke dampers, smoke detectors, automatic control dampers, air quantities for each room, air inlets/outlets, rises and drops in ductwork, and interconnection of HVAC equipment with fire protection equipment (see fire protection). Provide plan and section of mechanical equipment rooms and building corridors (show routing of main ductwork, plumbing, fire protection, major conduit or cable tray runs). Provide schematic flow and riser diagrams, schematic control diagrams, and equipment schedules. Indicate required seismic bracing. Provide legends, symbols, and abbreviations. Submit draft specifications for mechanical systems and equipment. H. Plumbing Submit completed design narrative addressing plumbing systems including supply, waste, and medical or laboratory gas systems. Submit calculations for piping systems and equipment. Submit completed design development drawing. In addition to the requirements of the first design development submittal, show the following: size of pipe, equipment schedule, fire and smoke partitions, riser diagrams, legend, notes, and details; location and size of sprinkler riser, COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 67 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages project. Securely adhere all samples with a strong adhesive and/or double sided foam tape. Place exterior materials on a separate board. Assign a color and material code to all samples. Sample Boards Use mat board, foam core or any other suitable lightweight material. Board size should not exceed 30" x 40". Use a white board. Backer boards of other colors may be used for bordering. Do not use frames. Signage and Wayfinding Submit drawing(s), specifications, and narrative to illustrate the wayfinding concept and signage systems proposed for the project. Include all graphics and signage that are to be provided as part of the solicitation. E. Sustainable Design and Energy Efficiency Where proposed Credits will not achieve all federally-mandated strategies for sustainability and energy efficiency, submit documentation showing compliance with federally-mandated strategies. Submit final ASHRAE 90.1-2013 base-case energy model and as-designed energy model based on the Construction Documents, including all assumptions used, demonstrating compliance with the 30% energy reduction goal. Submit final models for all other systems. Submit final commissioning specifications. F. Fire Protection/Life Safety Submit 75% complete fire protection drawings. In addition to the drawing requirements of the Second Design Development submission, include the following: Door and window schedule indicating fire rating and whether fire rated glazing will be provided; Height and configuration of storage racks and shelving in relation to fire sprinkler heads; Reference note to HVAC drawings that indicates interconnection of HVAC system components (dampers, fans) with duct smoke detectors and/or fire alarm system; When fire pump is required, submit details of the fire pump system, including elevation and isometric detail of fire pump, and interconnection of the fire pump system to the fire alarm system; Show zoning of each fire alarm initiating device, single line riser diagram for the fire alarm system, and detail of annunciator panel; Interconnection of kitchen fire extinguishing system to the fire alarm system; Provide final calculations. Submit fire protection specifications. G. Mechanical Provide complete and final engineering calculations of all systems. In addition to specifications, provide complete selection data, including catalog cuts and calculations, for all HVAC equipment and drawings showing all equipment schedules. Complete the coordination requirements with COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 91 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages and passive HVAC equipment and controls, plumbing systems, lighting and daylighting controls, domestic hot water systems, and onsite renewable energy systems. Plumbing systems shall also be integrated into the commissioning plan. The commissioning plan shall define pressure test procedures for all pipe systems, shower or bathroom basin leakage tests, plumbing fixture carrier installation, plumbing fixture flow rate adjustment, system chlorination and flush, Legionella disinfection, booster pump package, backflow prevention devices tested by a third party and reports included in the final commissioning report, thermostatic mixing valves, vacuum system, medical air system, oral evacuation system, dental compressed air system, natural gas and fuel system, and special water systems. B. Optimize Energy Performance Energy Efficiency Establish a whole building performance target that takes into account the intended use, occupancy, operations, plug loads, other energy demands, and design to earn the Energy Star® targets for new construction and major renovation where applicable. For new construction, reduce the energy use by 30% compared to the baseline building performance rating per the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2013, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential. If available, use Energy Star and FEMP- designated Energy Efficient Products. Per the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) Section 523, meet at least 30% of the hot water demand through the installation of solar hot water heaters, when life-cycle cost- effective. Measurement and Verification Per the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) Section 103, install building level utility meters in new major construction and renovation projects to track and continuously optimize performance. Per EISA Section 434, include meters for natural gas and steam, where appropriate. Compare actual performance data from the first year of operation with the energy design target. After one year of occupancy, measure all new major installations using the Energy Star® Portfolio Manager for building and space types covered by Energy Star®. Annually provide data to VA. C. Protect and Conserve Water Indoor Water Employ strategies that in aggregate use a minimum of 20% less potable water than the indoor water use baseline calculated for the building, after meeting the EPAct 1992, Uniform Plumbing Codes 2006, and the International Plumbing Codes 2006 fixture performance requirements. The installation of water meters is encouraged to allow for the management of water use during occupancy. Outdoor Water Use water efficient landscape and irrigation strategies, including water reuse and recycling, to reduce outdoor potable water consumption by a minimum of 50% over that consumed by COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 93 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages 10% (based on cost) of the total value of the materials in the project. If EPA-designated products meet performance requirements and are available at a reasonable cost, a preference for purchasing them should be included in all solicitations relevant to construction, operation, maintenance of, or use in the building. Biobased Content For USDA-designated products, use products meeting or exceeding USDA's biobased content recommendations. For other products, use biobased products made from rapidly renewable resources and certified sustainable wood products. If these designated products meet performance requirements and are available at a reasonable cost, a preference for purchasing them should be included in all solicitations relevant to construction, operation, maintenance of, or use in the building. Environmentally Preferable Products Use products, such as low-emitting materials or products containing no toxic metals, that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose. Construction Waste and Materials Management During a project's planning stage, identify local recycling and salvage operations that could process site-related construction and demolition materials. Program the design to recycle or salvage at least 50% of the non-hazardous construction, demolition, and land clearing materials, excluding soil, where markets or onsite recycling opportunities exist. Provide salvage, reuse, and recycling services for waste generated from major renovations, where markets or onsite recycling opportunities exist. Ozone Depleting Compounds Eliminate the use of ozone depleting compounds during and after construction where alternative environmentally preferable products are available, consistent with either the Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, or equivalent overall air quality benefits that take into account life-cycle impacts. 4.8 ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT (OCT 2016) A. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) establishes requirements for Government leases relating to energy efficiency standards and potential cost effective energy efficiency and conservation improvements. B. Unless one of the statutory exceptions listed in sub-paragraph C below applies, GSA may award a lease for a Building only if the Building has earned the ENERGY STAR® label conferred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the most recent year prior to the due date for final proposal revisions. The term “most recent year” means that the date of award of the ENERGY STAR® label by EPA must not be more than 1 year prior to the due date of final proposal revisions. For example, an ENERGY STAR® label awarded by EPA on October 1, 2010, is valid for all lease procurements where final proposal revisions are due on or before September 30, 2011. In lieu of the above, all new Buildings being specifically constructed for the Government must achieve an ENERGY STAR® label within 18 months after occupancy by the Government. In addition, Offerors of the following Buildings shall also have up to 18 months after occupancy by the Government, or as soon thereafter as the Building is eligible for Energy Star® consideration, to achieve an Energy Star® label: 1) All existing Buildings that have had an Energy Star® COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 94 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages label but are unable to obtain a label in the most recent year (i.e., within 12 months prior to the due date for final proposal revisions) because of insufficient occupancy; 2) Newly built Buildings that have used Energy® Star’s Target Finder tool and either achieved a “Designed to Earn the Energy Star®” certification or received an unofficial score (in strict adherence to Target Finder’s usage instructions, including the use of required energy modeling) of 75 or higher prior to the due date for final proposal revisions and who are unable to obtain a label in the most recent year because of insufficient occupancy; 3) An existing Building that is unable to obtain a label because of insufficient occupancy but that can produce an indication, through the use of energy modeling or past utility and occupancy data input into Energy Star’s® Portfolio Manager tool or Target Finder, that it can receive an unofficial score of 75 or higher using all other requirements of Target Finder or Portfolio Manager, except for actual data from the most recent year. ENERGY STAR® tools and resources can be found at https://www.energystar.gov/. C. EISA allows a Federal agency to lease Space in a Building that does not have an ENERGY STAR® Label if: 1. No Space is offered in a Building with an ENERGY STAR® Label that meets RLP requirements, including locational needs; 2. The agency will remain in a Building it currently occupies; 3. The Lease will be in a Building of historical, architectural, or cultural significance listed or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or 4. The Lease is for 10,000 RSF or less. D. If one or more of the statutory exceptions applies, and the offered Space is not in a Building that has earned the ENERGY STAR® Label within one year prior to the due date for final proposal revisions, Offerors are required to include in their lease proposal an agreement to renovate the Building for all energy efficiency and conservation improvements that it has determined would be cost effective over the Firm Term of the Lease, if any, prior to acceptance of the Space (or not later than one year after the Lease Award Date of a succeeding or superseding lease). Such improvements may consist of, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) upgrades, including boilers, chillers, and Building Automation System (BAS)/Monitoring/Control System (EMCS). 2. Lighting Improvements. 3. Building Envelope Modifications. NOTE: Additional information can be found on http://www.gsa.gov/leasing under “Green Leasing.” E. The term "cost effective" means an improvement that will result in substantial operational cost savings to the landlord by reducing electricity or fossil fuel consumption, water, or other utility costs. The term "operational cost savings" means a reduction in operational costs to the landlord through the application of Building improvements that achieve cost savings over the Firm Term of the Lease sufficient to pay the incremental additional costs of making the Building improvements. F. Instructions for obtaining an ENERGY STAR® Label are provided at http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/earn- COMMUNITY-BASED December 9, 2019 SOLICITATION FOR OFFERS OUTPATIENT CLINIC SFO NO. 36C10F19R0067 BAKERSFIELD, CA Part I: Basic Solicitation Requirements – Page 95 of 217 Lessor __________ Gov’t. ____________________ of __________ Pages recognition/energy-star-certification (use “Portfolio Manager” to apply). ENERGY STAR® tools and resources can be found at https://www.energystar.gov/. The ENERGY STAR® Building Upgrade Manual (http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/save- energy/comprehensive-approach/energy-star) and Building Upgrade Value Calculator (http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources/building-upgrade-value-calculator) are tools which can be useful in considering energy efficiency and conservation improvements to Buildings. G. If one or more of the statutory exceptions applies, and the offered Space is not in a Building that has earned the ENERGY STAR® Label within one year prior to the due date for final proposal revisions, the successful Offeror will be excused from performing any agreed-to energy efficiency and conservation renovations, and benchmarking with public disclosure (as provided in (I) below, if it obtains the ENERGY STAR® Label prior to the Government’s acceptance of the Space (or not later than one year after the Lease Award Date for succeeding and superseding leases). H. If no improvements are proposed, the Offeror must demonstrate to the Government using the ENERGY STAR® Online Tools why no energy efficiency and conservation improvements are cost effective. If such explanation is unreasonable, the offer may be rejected. I. As described in Section 3 of the Lease, successful Offerors meeting one of the statutory exceptions above must agree to benchmark and publicly disclose the Building’s current ENERGY STAR® score, using EPA’s Portfolio Manager online software application. See the Lease for additional details. J. All new Buildings being specifically constructed for the Government must achieve the ENERGY STAR® Label within 18 months after occupancy by the Government. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment B: ISR Application Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 1 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Indirect Source Review (ISR) - Air Impact Assessment (AIA) Application A. Applicant Information Applicant/Business Name: SASD Development Group, LLC Mailing Address: 1094 Cudahy Place, Suite 318 City: San Diego State: CA Zip: 92110 Contact: Steven Doctor Title: Member Is the Applicant a licensed state contractor? No Yes, please provide State License number: Phone: 619.220.4161 Email: csdoctor01@gmail.com B. Agent Information (if applicable) Agent/Business Name: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Contact: Title: Phone: Email: C. Project Information Project Name: Veteran’s Affairs Community Based Outpatient Medical Clinic Project Location Street: 5512 Knudsen Drive City: Bakersfield Zip: CA Cross Streets: Olive Drive County: Kern Permitting Agency: City of Bakersfield Planner: Kassandra Gale Contact Number: Permit Type and Number (if known): Subject to Project-Level Discretionary Approval? Yes No Last Project-Level Discretionary Approval Date: Last Project-Level Ministerial Approval Date: D.Project Description Please briefly describe the project (e.g.: 300 multi-family residential units apartments or 6 miles road widening): Development of a 39,648 square foot medical outpatient facility. For Residential/Non-Residential/Mixed-Use please check the box next to each applicable land use below: Commercial / Retail Educational Office Warehouse Residential Government Industrial Distribution Center Recreational (e.g. park) Medical Manufacturing Other: For Transportation/Transit please check the box next to each applicable land use below: New Road Construction Expansion to an Existing Road Bridge / Overpass Interchange or Intersection Improvements Select land use setting: Urban Rural E. Notice of Violation Is this application being submitted as a result of receiving a Notice of Violation (NOV)? No Yes, NOV #: FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY Filing Fee Received: _________________ Date Paid:_________________ Applicant #: _______________ Check #:_____________________ Project #:_____________________ Date Stamp: Finance Date Stamp: Permit Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 2 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 F. Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) Is this project part of a larger project for which there is a VERA with the District? No Yes, VERA #: G. Optional Section Do you want to receive information about the Healthy Air Living Business Partners Program? No Yes H. Parcel and Land Owner Information APN (000-000-00 Format) Gross Acres Land Owner 1. 365-020-28 3.15 SASD Development Group, LLC 2. 365-020-30 10.02 SASD Development Group, LLC 3. Additional sheets for listing APN numbers can be found on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. I. Project Development and Operation Will the project require demolition of existing structures? Yes, complete J No, complete K J. Demolition Total square feet of building(s) footprint to be demolished: Number of Building Stories: Demolition Start Date (Month/Year): Number of Days for Demolition: K. Timing Expected number of work days per week during construction? 5 days 6 days 7 days For Transportation/Transit projects, please complete L-1 For Residential/Non-Residential/Mixed-Use projects, will it be developed in multiple phases? No, complete L-2 Yes, complete L-3 L-1. Transporation / Transit Development and Timing Details Please note that development timelines provided within this section should reflect actual work time, and should not account for possible project delays. Start of Construction (Month/Year): End of Construction (Month/Year): Number of actual construction days: Length of road being constructed: miles Width of road being constructed: feet Predominant Soil Type (choose one): Sand Gravel Weathered Rock – Earth Blasted Rock Amount of soil imported: cubic yards Amount of soil exported: cubic yards Amount of asphalt imported: cubic yards Amount of asphalt exported: cubic yards Total area to be disturbed: acres Maximum area disturbed per day: acres Average truck capacity: cubic yards Will water trucks be used? Yes No L-2. Single Phase Development Start of Construction (Month/Year): 10/23 Gross Acres: 13.458 End of Construction (Month/Year): 1/25 Net Acres (area devoted to buildings/structures): 0.91 First Date of Occupation (Month/Year): 2025 Paved Parking Area (# of Spaces): 214 Building Square Footage: 39,648 Number of Dwelling Units: L-3. Phased Site Development and Building Construction In addition to the information below you can submit phase specific activity timeline found on District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. 1 Start of Construction (Month/Year): Gross Acres: End of Construction (Month/Year): Net Acres (area devoted to buildings/structures): First Date of Occupation (Month/Year): Paved Parking Area (# of Spaces): Building Square Footage: Number of Dwelling Units: 2 Start of Construction (Month/Year): Gross Acres: End of Construction (Month/Year): Net Acres (area devoted to buildings/structures): First Date of Occupation (Month/Year): Paved Parking Area (# of Spaces): Building Square Footage: Number of Dwelling Units: 3 Start of Construction (Month/Year): Gross Acres: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 3 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 End of Construction (Month/Year): Net Acres (area devoted to buildings/structures): First Date of Occupation (Month/Year): Paved Parking Area (# of Spaces): Building Square Footage: Number of Dwelling Units: 4 Start of Construction (Month/Year): Gross Acres: End of Construction (Month/Year): Net Acres (area devoted to buildings/structures): First Date of Occupation (Month/Year): Paved Parking Area (# of Spaces): Building Square Footage: Number of Dwelling Units: Additional sheets for phasing information can be found on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. M. On-Site Emission Reduction Measures (Mitigation Measures) Listed below are categories of possible mitigation measures for applicants to implement that will reduce a project’s impact on air quality. Check “Yes” next to any measure that will be utilized for this project, and please complete the corresponding page in this form to identify specifics related to that measure. If a category is not applicable to the project, check “No” and provide justification for not selecting the measure. Also, the applicant is encouraged to provide any mitigation measures including supporting documentation that are not listed on this application form for District consideration. For reference, see www.valleyair.org/ISR for potential additional mitigiation measures. Clean Construction Fleet Mitgation Measure below can be selected for all development types 1. Clean Construction Fleet (Note: Making a commitment to using less polluting construction equipment) Yes, please complete mitigation measure 1 below No, please provide justification why not selected:___________________________________________________________ Operational Mitgation Measure below can be selected for all development types, except for transportation and transit projects 2. Clean On-Road Trucks (e.g. Heavy Duty Trucks, Medium Duty Trucks, and Light Duty Trucks) Note: Operational fleet will use zero and/or near-zero emissions for all or part of its activities. Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 2a through 2c below No, please provide justification why not selected:_Project will not operate a truck fleet._________________________________ 3. On-Site Zero Emission Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (e.g. electric forklifts and electric yard trucks) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 3 below No, please provide justification why not selected:__Project will not operate off-road vehicles and equipment _________________ 4. Solar Panels (e.g. incorporate solar panels in the project) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 4 below No, please provide justification why not selected: Project is contracted with the federal government, project design has been finalized and cannot be modified 5. Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers (e.g. incorporate onsite EV charging infrastructure) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 5 below No, please provide justification why not selected: Project is contracted with the federal government, project design has been finalized and cannot be modified 6. Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment (e.g. eletric mowers, electric leaf blowers, electric trimmers, etc.) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 6 below No, please provide justification why not selected:___________________________________________________________ 7. Land Use/Location (e.g. increased density, improve walkability design, increase transit, etc.) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measures 7a through 7f below No, please provide justification why not selected:___________________________________________________________ 8. Neighborhood/Site Enhancements (e.g. improve pedestrial network, traffic calming measures, NEV network, etc.) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measures 8a through 8c below No, please provide justification why not selected:___________________________________________________________ 9. Parking Policy/Pricing (e.g. parking cost, on-street market pricing, limit parking supply, etc.) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measure 9a through 9e below No, please provide justification why not selected: Project is contracted with the federal government, project design has been finalized and cannot be modified 10. Commute Trip Reduction Programs (e.g. workplace parking charge, employee vanpool/shuttle, ride sharing program, etc.) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measures 10a through 10f below No, please provide justification why not selected: Project is contracted with the federal government, project design has been finalized and cannot be modified 11. Hearth (e.g. woodstoves or fireplaces) Yes, please complete mitigation measure 11 below Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 4 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 No, please provide justification why not selected: Not Applicable to Project type.______________________________________ 12. Exceed Title 24 (e.g. exceed California Title 24 required energy efficiency for building(s) associated with the project) Yes, please complete applicable mitigation measures 12 below No, please provide justification why not selected: Project is contracted with the federal government, project design has been finalized and cannot be modified N. Review Period You may request a five (5) day period to review a draft of the District’s analysis of your project before it is finalized. However, if you choose this option, it will delay the project’s finalization by five (5) business days. I request to review a draft of the District’s analysis. O. Fee Deferral Schedule If the project’s on-site air pollution reductions (mitigation measure) insufficiently reduced air pollution as outlined in Rule 9510, an off-site fee is assessed based on the excess air pollution. The money collected from this fee will be used by the District to reduce air pollution emissions ‘off-site’ on behalf of the project. An Applicant may request a deferral of all or part of the ‘off-site’ fees up to, but not to exceed, the start date of construction. The start of construction is any of the following, whichever occcurs first: start of grading, start of demolition, or any other site development activities not mentioned above. I request a Fee Deferral Schedule, and have enclosed the Fee Deferral Schedule Application. The Fee Deferral Schedule Application, can be found on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. P. Change of Project Developer The Applicant assumes all responsibility for ISR compliance for this project. If the project developer changes, the Applicant must notify the Buyer, and both Buyer and Applicant must file a ‘Change of Project Developer’ form with the District. If there is a change of project developer, and a ‘Change of Project Developer’ form is not filed with the District, the Applicant will remain liable for ISR compliance. The Change of Project Developer form can be found on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. Q. Attachments Required: Tract Map or Project Design Map Vicinity Map Application Filing Fee $841.00 for mixed use / non-residential / transporation / transit projects OR $562.00 for residential projects only If applicable: Letter from Applicant granting Agent authorization Fee Deferral Schedule Application Monitoring & Reporting Schedule Supporting documentation for selected Mitigation Measures R. Certification Statement I certify that I have reviewed and completed the entire application and hereby attest that the information relayed within is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I commit to implementation of those on-site mitigation measures that I have selected above. I am responsible for notifying the District if I will be unable to implement these mitigation measures. If a committed mitigation measure is not implemented, the project may be re-assessed for air quality impacts. (An authorized Agent may sign the form in lieu of the Applicant if an authorization letter signed by the Applicant is provided). Name (printed): __________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 5 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 1: Construction Clean Fleet Will the project use a construction clean fleet to achieve the emission reductions required by District Rule 9510? (By checking “yes”the Applicant is commiting to achieving the following emission reduction requirements: 20% for NOx and 45% for PM10 compared to the statewide average.) No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes*, please be aware of the requirements below: *If yes, daily records of the total hours of operation for each piece of equipment greater than 50-horsepower being used on the project site during construction must be maintained. Within 30-days of completing construction of each project phase, a report summarizing total hours of operation by equipment type, equipment model year and horsepower for each piece of construction equipment greater than 50-horsepower must be submitted to the District. To assist in this recordkeeping, the Construction Clean Fleet Data Template is available on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. Please note: if the required construction emission reductions under Rule 9510 cannot be achieved, fees are required in order to mitigate the remaining balance of emissions. For each project phase, the District will verify that the fleet details achieved the required emission reductions Mitigation Measure 2a: Clean On-Road Heavy Duty Trucks Will the project use any operational clean Heavy Duty Trucks (On-road vehicles with a gross vehicle weight greater than 26,000 pounds)? For example, zero-emission electric trucks and/or near-zero emission trucks meeting CARBs established emission standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes*, please complete section below: 1. Number of trucks for Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 2. Trip length in miles each of the following types of trucks will travel one way for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 3. Expected number of one-way trips per year for each of the following types of trucks for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: *If yes, by selecting this measure there will be a condition placed on the monitoring and reporting schedule to ensure compliance. Records of the fleet data, including truck type, will be required to be submitted to the District on an annual basis. Please note: by selecting this measure, you are certifying to the District that the above operational clean fleet vehicles have not been funded by state or District grant programs. Mitigation Measure 2b: Clean On-Road Medium Duty Vehicles Will the project use any operational clean Medium Duty Vehicles (On-road vehicles with a gross vehicle weight between 14,001 pounds and 26,000 pounds)? For example, zero-emission electric vehicles, zero emission last mile delivery trucks or vans and/or near-zero emission vehicles meeting CARB’s established emission standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes*, please complete section below: 1. Number of trucks for Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 2. Trip length in miles each of the following types of trucks will travel one way for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 3. Expected number of one-way trips per year for each of the following types of trucks for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: *If yes, by selecting this measure there will be a condition placed on the monitoring and reporting schedule to ensure compliance. Records of the fleet data, including truck type, will be required to be submitted to the District on an annual basis. Please note: by selecting this measure, you are certifying to the District that the above operational clean fleet vehicles have not been funded by state or District grant programs. Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 6 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 2c: Clean On-Road Light Duty Vehicles Will the project use any operational clean Light Duty Vehicles (On-road vehicles with a gross vehicle weight below 14,000 pounds)? For example, zero-emission electric vehicles, zero emission last mile delivery trucks or vans and/or near-zero emission vehicles meeting CARBs established emission standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes*, please complete section below: 1. Number of trucks for Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 2. Trip length in miles each of the following types of trucks will travel one way for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: 3. Expected number of one-way trips per year for each of the following types of trucks for the Project: zero emission trucks: near-zero emission trucks: other types of trucks: *If yes, by selecting this measure there will be a condition placed on the monitoring and reporting schedule to ensure compliance. Records of the fleet data, including truck type, will be required to be submitted to the District on an annual basis. Please note: by selecting this measure, you are certifying to the District that the above operational clean fleet vehicles have not been funded by state or District grant programs. Mitigation Measure 3: On-Site Zero Emission Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Will the project use any operational on-site zero emission Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment? (e.g. electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, electric aerial lifts) No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: Type of Zero Emission Vehicles and Equipment No. of Vehicles and Equipment Hours/Day Days/Year Horsepower Fuel Type (CNG, Hydrogen, or Electric) 1. Yard Truck 2. Forklifts 3. Aerial Lifts 4. Other Equipment Please note: by selecting this measure, you are certifying to the District that the above operational off-road vehicles have not been funded by state or District grant programs. Additional sheets for listing On-Site Zero Emission Vehicles/Equipment can be found on the District’s website at www.valleyair.org/ISR. Mitigation Measure 4: Solar Panels Will the project include the installation of solar panels? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Total power output of solar panels to be installed: kW (e.g.: 200 homes x 3kW=600kW.) • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 7 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 5: Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers Will the project include the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charger(s)? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Number of charging outlet(s) to be installed (Note: a charger may have one or more charging outlets): • Charging level (e.g.: Level 1, Level 2, or DC Fast Charge): • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 6: Clean Landscape Equipment Will the project utilize clean landscaping equipment? (e.g. electric lawn mowers, electric leaf blowers, etc.) (Note 3% is the assumed statewide average for landscape equipment) No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Percent of electric lawnmower that will be electrically powered: 3% • Percent of leaf blower that will be electrically powered: 3% • Percent of electric chainsaw that will be electrically powered: 3% • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation if claiming greater than 3% over statewide average. Attached Mitigation Measure 7a: Increase Density Will the Project be located within 1/2 mile radius of increased density? Density is measured in terms of dwelling units or jobs per acre. A project located in areas of increased density may reduce emissions associated with traffic. *Note: There are approximately 502.4 acres in a 1/2 mile radius. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: 1. Number of Dwelling Units within 1/2 radius of Project: 2. Number of Jobs within 1/2 mile radius of Project: 3. Density: Density is the ‘Number of Dwelling Units’ or ‘Number of Jobs’ within ½ mile radius divided by 502.4 acres. Dwelling Units per Acre: Jobs per Acre: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation (e.g.: map) to justify the provided jobs and housing. Attached Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 8 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 7b: Increase Diversity This mitigation measure applies to a project in an Urban Area only. Will the project be predominantly characterized by properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are present within ¼ mile? Mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport and minimize need for external trips. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation (e.g.: map) to justify the project is characterized by various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are within ¼ mile that encourage walking and non-auto modes of transport. Attached Mitigation Measure 7c: Improve Walkability Design Will the project improve walkability? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: 1. Square Miles within the Study Area: a. If the distance from the center of the project out to its farthest boundary is less than or equal to ½ mile then the Square Miles within the Study Area will be 0.79. (Enter this value in the blank to the right.) b. If the distance from the center of the project out to its farthest boundary is greater than ½ mile then calculate the area value by: Study Area Square Miles = 3.14 x radius(squared). (Enter this value in the blank to the right.) Square Miles: 0.79 2. Intersection within the Study Area: Number and type of intersections within the project area: Number of 3-Way Intersections: 19 x 3 = 57 Number of 4-Way Intersections: 2 x 4 = 8 Number of 5-Way Intersections: 0 x 5 = 0 Total Intersections (sum of above) = 65 3. Intersection Density within the Study Area: Intersection Density is the Study Area’s ‘Total Intersections’ value (B.) divided by the ‘Square Miles’ value (A.): 82.3 Intersections / sq. mi. • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation (e.g.: map) to justify number of intersections within ½ mile of the project. Attached Mitigation Measure 7d: Improve Destination Accessibility Will the project be located within 12 miles from downtown or a job center? The location of the project may increase the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduce VMT. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Distance to Downtown/Job Center (miles): 0.88 • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation (e.g: map) to justify the distance of the project to the Downtown/Job Center. Attached Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 9 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 7e: Increase Transit Accessibility Will the project be located near a transit station/stop at least within ¼ mile or near a rail at least within ½ mile that will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the project site? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Distance to Rail Station (miles): ½ mile or less between ½ mile and 3 miles • Distance to Transit Station (miles): ¼ mile • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation (e.g.: map) to justify the project is located within ¼ mile of a transit station or within ½ mile of a rail from the project site. Attached Mitigation measure 7f: Integrate Below Market Rate Housing Will the project require all or a portion of the residential units designated as deed-restricted below-market-rate (BMR) housing? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Percentage of total dwelling units deed-restricted below market rate: % • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach supporting documentation to justify all or a portion of the residential units that are designated as deed-restricted below-market-rate housing. Attached Mitigation Measure 8a: Improve Pedestrian Network Will the project provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Select one of the following areas, where pedestrian accommodations will be provided: within Project Site within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site Project Site is within a Rural setting • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 8b: Provide Traffic Calming Measures Will this project provide traffic calming measures which encourage people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle (e.g., marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others)? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % Streets with Improvement within ½ mile of project site: 25% 50% 75% 100% • % Intersections with Improvement within ½ mile of project site: 25% 50% 75% 100% • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 10 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 8c: Implement Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network Will the project provide a NEV network including the necessary infrastructure such as parking, charging facilities, striping, signage, and educational tools? *Note: NEVs are classified in the California Vehicle Code as a “low speed vehicle”. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 9a: Limit Parking Supply Will the Will the project provide fewer parking spaces than the rate provided by the Institute of Transportation and Engineering (ITE) Parking Generation Handbook? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % Reduction in Spaces: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 9b: Unbundle Parking Cost Will the project implement a monthly/annual parking charge? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Monthly Parking Cost for Project Site ($): • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 9c: On-Street Market Pricing Will this project and the city (in which the project is located) implement a pricing strategy which will increase the on-street public parking (e.g.: meter parking) by at least 25%? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % Increase in Price: 25% 30% 40% 50% • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 11 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 9d: Transit Subsidy Will the project provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of employees to receive public transit passes: • Please select the closest expected Daily Transit Subsidy Amount ($): $0.75 $1.50 $3 $6 • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 9e: Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” Will the project require employers to offer employee parking “cash-out”? The term “cash-out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of employees to receive “cash-out”: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 10a: Workplace Parking Charge Will the project implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers (e.g., explicitly charging for parking for its employees, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, educating employees about available alternatives)? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of employees paying for parking: • Please select the closest expected Daily Cash out Amount ($): $1 $2 $3 $6 • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 10b: Implement School Bus Program Will the project work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services in the project area and local community? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of families expected to using school bus program (those currently attending the school district): • Please select the closest expected Daily Cash out Amount ($): $1 $2 $3 $6 • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 12 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 10c: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules Will the project include the use of telecommuting or alternative work schedules to reduce the number of commute trips by employees? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Percent of employees to participate in a 9/80 work schedule: 1% 3% 5% 10% 25% • Percent of employees to participate in a 4/40 work schedule: 1% 3% 5% 10% 25% • Percent of employees to participate in telecommuting 1.5 days: 1% 3% 5% 10% 25% • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 10d: Market Commute Trip Reduction Option Will the project implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips (e.g., new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode option, event promotions, publications)? This measure should promote and educate employees on alternative transportation options No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of Employees Eligible: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 10e: Employee Vanpool/Shuttle Will this project implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle? Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at lease program administration, if not more. Rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of employees participating in the vanpool program: • % of vehicles for vanpooling: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 10f: Provide Ride Sharing Program Will the project include a ride-sharing program? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • % of Employees participating in the ride-sharing program: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 13 of 13 Revised August 30, 2022 Mitigation Measure 11: Hearth Will the project include any woodstoves or fireplaces? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Only natural gas hearth • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Mitigation Measure 12: Exceed Title 24 Will the energy efficiency rating of the project’s building(s) be greater than California Title 24 requirements? No, please complete justification in Section M above Yes, please complete section below: • Percent of increase greater than California Title 24 requirements: • Will this mitigation measure be required as a condition of approval by the land use agency, by other county or municipal codes, or other? No, (note: if checked “no” this mitigation measure will require District enforcement) Yes, Name of enforcing agency: Source of Requirement: Documentation: Please attach relevant analysis or summary pages of Title 24 documentation. Attached Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 1 of 2 Revised August 30, 2022 Indirect Source Review (ISR) - Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) A. Applicant Information Applicant/Business Name: SASD Development Group Mailing Address: 1094 Cudahy Place, Suite 318 City: San Diego State: CA Zip: 92110 Contact: Steven Doctor Title: Member Is the Applicant a licensed state contractor? No Yes, please provide State License number: Phone: 619.220.4161 Email: csdoctor01@gmail.com B. Project Information Project Name: Veteran’s Affairs Community Based Outpatient Medical Clinic Project Location Street: 5512 Knudsen Drive City: Bakersfield Zip: CA Cross Streets: Olive Drive County: Kern ISR Project Number (if known): C.Payment Dates For each project phase identified in the Air Impact Assessment (AIA) Application form, please provide the following information. Phase Number Proposed Payment Date (mm/dd/yy) (no later than construction start date) Estimated Payment Amount (if known) 1 2023 Construction – Clean Fleet - 2 2024 Construction – Clean Fleet - 3 1/17/2025 $37,574.16 Central Region Office: 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Fresno, CA 93726-0244 TEL (559) 230-6000 www.valleyair.org/ISR Page 2 of 2 Revised August 30, 2022 D. Change of Project Developer The applicant assumes all responsibility for ISR compliance for this project. If the project developer changes, the applicant must notify the buyer, and both buyer and applicant must file a ‘Change of Project Developer’ form with the District. If the project developer changes, and a ‘Change of Project Developer’ form is not filed with the District, the applicant remains liable for ISR compliance. E. Project Termination In the event that a project is terminated or cancelled, and no construction has taken place, and the use has never occupied the site, the applicant is entitled to a refund of the entire paid off-site fee, and the 4% fee less any administrative costs incurred by the APCO. To qualify for a refund, the applicant must provide a written request for refund, with proof of project termination, within thirty (30) calendar days of the termination. Proof of project termination may consist of confirmation by the local agency of permit cancellation. F. Fee Payment Fees are to be paid in full on or before the dates established in the approved Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS). Failure to satisfy the terms of the approved FDS may be deemed a violation of Rule 9510 and subject to District compliance procedures. Failure to satisfy terms of the FDS does not apply to projects that have been terminated. G. Project Delay The applicant is responsible for notifying the District of project delays. Notification must include a new start of construction and/or anticipated build-out date for each phase of the project. The applicant may propose a new FDS, and if not, the District shall prepare and provide the applicant with a revised FDS within 30 calendar days of receipt of notification of project delay. The applicant is responsible for completing and returning the revised FDS within 30 days of the receipt of the revised FDS. H. Certification Statement I certify that I have reviewed and completed the entire application and hereby attest that the information relayed within is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. (An authorized Agent may sign the form in lieu of the Applicant if an authorization letter signed by the Applicant is provided). Name (printed): __________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ 25'-0" STAND-OFF SETBACK PROPERTY LINE ASSUMED PATIENT CIRCULATION STAFF CIRCULATION SERVICE CIRCULATION EMERGENCY PEDESTRIAN SET BACK OR EASEMENT PER CITY STANDARDS & REGULATIONS LIGHTED BOLLARD STANDARD BOLLARD LANDSCAPE BOULDER / VEHICLE BARRIER STAFF ENTRY PUBLIC / PATIENT ENTRY SERVICE ENTRY EMERGENCY ENTRY LEGEND VA STANDARD SPACE IS 9'-0" WITH 63'-0" BAY WIDTH VA REQUIRES NO MORE THAN 1 MOTORCYCLE SPACE FOR EVERY 60 STANDARD SPACES DROP-OFF SPACES DO NOT COUNT TOWARD TOTAL VA ACCESSIBLE SPACE REQUIRES 5'-0" ACCESS AISLE ON BOTH SIDES VA VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE REQUIRES 8'-0" ACCESS AISLE ON BOTH SIDES VA DOES NOT SPECIFY THE RATIO OF PUBLIC TO STAFF PARKING VA REQUIRES THE GREATER OF 203 SPACES TOTAL, INCLUDING VAN AND STANDARD ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND MOTORCYCLE SPACES. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. REMARKS OLIVE DRIVE KNUDSEN DRIVELANDCO DRIVESTREET 'A' E M E R G E N C Y G E N E R A T O RKNUDSEN STREETMAINENTRANCEPATIENT & PUBLIC PARKING S T A F F P A R K I N G STAFF & SERVICE ENTRANCE STAFF ENTRANCE SECONDARY ENTRANCE / EXIT LANDCO DRIVESTREET 'A' 1 TYP. 2 3 9 12 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 11 13 TYP. OF (6)14 VA COMMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC SETBACK10' - 0" MONUMENT SIGN, WITH CMU BASE AND METAL SIDING, COMPATABLE WITH BUILDING DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE SCHEME PER SFO SECTION 5.6 VEHICLE BARRIER - BOLLARDS ELEVATED LOADING DOCK WITH CANOPY EXTERIOR TRASH AND RECYCLING WITH 6 FT. HIGH CMU ENCLOSURE WITH METAL GATES HEALING GARDEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SHEET NOTES COVERED OUTDOOR PATIO 9 COVERED DROP-OFF (CANOPY SHOWN DASHED) 10 11 COVERED AMBULATORY PICK-UP 12 FLAGPOLES - (2) 30' AND (1) 35' HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND WITH EXTERIOR LIGHTING PER SFO SECTION 5.4.1 PUBLIC WAY BICYCLE RACK SMOKING SHELTER FOR PATIENTS, VISITORS, VOLUNTEERS, EMPLOYEES PER SFO SECTION 5.4.2 13 BENCHES SERVING HEALING GARDEN 14 CONCRETE SEAT WALL AND VEHICULAR BARRIER one-quarter inch = one footone-eighth inch = one foot4081604one-half inch = one footthree-eighths inch = one foot8040three-quarters inch = one foot4602F E Done and one-half inches = one footone inch = one foot60260three inches = one foot1601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C B A 10 F E D C B A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10File Name:Plot Date:SFO Number Drawing Number Project Title Location Issue Date Checked Drawn Drawing Title Approved: FULLY SPRINKLERED Office of Construction and Facilities Management U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Phase BEST AND FINAL OFFER KNUDSEN STREET & OLIVE DRIVE 36C10F19R00677 VA BAKERSFIELD COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC NMR Project Number: http://www.nmrdesign.com 300 KNOLLCREST DRIVE REDDING, CA. 96002 (530) 222-3300 (530) 222-3538 FAX CONSULTANTS:DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT/ENGINEERS:STAMP: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION D:\Users\YasmeenB\Documents\A_VA BAKERSFIELD_Initial Offer_barakatP788Q.rvt5/1/2020 8:17:25 AMOVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Team TeamMAY 1, 2020 AS101 17-9009 PARKING CALCULATIONS PROVIDED SPACES - SPACE TYPE DIMENSIONS SPACES REQUIRED SPACES PROVIDED REMARKSLENGTHWIDTHCITY REQUIRED SPACESVA REQUIREMENTS TOTAL REQUIRED SPACESPUBLIC/PATIENTSTAFF TOTALPUBLIC / PATIENTSTAFFCITY STANDARD SPACE - 9'-0" X 20'-0" 20' - 0" 9' - 0" 190 132 45 203 138 46 184 1,3,6 MOTORCYCLE SPACE - 4'-6" X 8'-0" 8' - 0" 4' - 6" 25% OR 5 MIN. 3 2 4 4 2 6 2,6 ACCESSIBLE - STANDARD 20' - 0" 9' - 0" 17 13 4 17 14 5 19 4,6 ACCESSIBLE - VAN 20' - 0" 9' - 0" 2 3 1 4 4 1 5 5,6 TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED: 214 160 54 214 NORTHSCALE: 1" = 25'-0" PROJECT APPROACH SCALE: 1" = 25'-0" SITE PLAN No.Description Date 30,100 MAX NUSF 39,648 RSF/GSF Vicinity Map Legend Proposed Project Site 3000 ft N➤➤N Intersection Map 18,056 © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 0.6 Legend 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.600.28 NotesThis map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. The County of Kern assumes no liability for damages, incurred by the user of this information, which occur directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions or discrepancies in the information. Roads 10k-24k Freeway Highway Major Minor Local Ramp Unpaved August 16, 2023 Steven Doctor Sasd Development Group, Llc 4895 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 Re: Notice of Receipt of Complete Application ISR Project Number: C-20230239 Land Use Agency: City of Bakersfield Land Use Agency ID Number: Unknown Dear Mr. Doctor: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has deemed your Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application complete for the following project, Veteran's Affairs Community Based Outpatient Medical Clinic, located at 5512 Knudsen Drive, Bakersfield, California. The project consists of the development of a 39,648 sq. ft. medical outpatient facility. The next step in the process is for the District to quantify emissions from the project and to calculate applicable off-site fees, if any. During processing your application, the District may request additional information to clarify, correct or otherwise supplement the information on file. We will begin processing your AIA application as soon as possible. Please pay close attention to the following important information: This letter is not an AIA approval. and determination of applicable offsite fees, the District will issue an AIA approval letter. Generating emissions, such as starting ground disturbance for construction, before receiving an approved AIA and paying the required Off-site Fees, if any, is a violation of District regulations and is subject to enforcement action. For your convenience, a document is enclosed which addresses frequently asked questions regarding Indirect Source Review (ISR). This may be used as a reference to better understand ISR, and how the District will process your application. Mr. Doctor Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jacob M Torrez by telephone at (559) 230- 6558 or by email jacob.torrez@valleyair.org. Sincerely, Brian Clements Director of Permit Services For: Mark Montelongo Program Manager Enclosures Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment C: VA Clinic Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) Christine M Modovsky 1744994 Digitally signed by Christine M Modovsky 1744994 Date: 2021.01.05 13:32:28 -08'00' Eric C ROBERTS 1406931 Digitally signed by Eric C ROBERTS 1406931 Date: 2021.01.05 17:15:37 -05'00' Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment D: ALTA Survey ΔP M B 4 / 6 0 P M N O . 1 0 1 3 7 60 5 3 / 6 8 7 O . R .VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE APN 365-020-30BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIAREVISIONST&MSURVEYINGSITE Δ APN 365-020-30BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIAREVISIONST&MSURVEYING Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment E: Bakersfield Fire Department and Police Department Letters BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT ● 2101 H STREET ● BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301 ● 661-326-3911 ~CLASS 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT~ John Frando ■ Fire Chief ■ Deputy Fire Chief Kevin Albertson Operations 661-326-3655 Deputy Fire Chief Jimmy Cherry Support Services 661-326-3687 Deputy Fire Chief Paul Briones Specialized Services 661-326-3698 Fire Department Headquarters 2101 H Street, Floor 1 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 326-3911 (main) (661) 852-2170 (fax) Fire Department Community Services / Public Information 2101 H Street, Floor 1 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 326-3688 (office) (661) 852-2170 (fax) Fire Prevention Division 2101 H Street, Floor 2 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 326-3979 (main) (661) 852-2171 (fax) Fire Training Division 5642 Victor Street (ODFTF) Bakersfield, CA 93308 (661) 399-4697 (main) (661) 399-5763 (fax) Arson Division 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 326-3911 (main) (661) 852-2172 (fax) To: City of Bakersfield Planning Division Attn: Louis Ramirez lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us 1715 Chester Ave Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Assessment of Impact on Fire Department Services for Proposed Clinic Dear Mr. Ramirez, We, at City of Bakersfield Fire Department, have thoroughly evaluated the potential impact of the proposed Veteran's Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Medical Clinic Project (5512 Knudsen Drive) on our ability to provide fire department services to the community. We are pleased to inform you that after careful analysis, we have determined that there will be no significant impact on our operations. Our assessment considered various factors, including the proposed clinic's location, size, scope of services, and its expected impact on the surrounding area. We also considered the potential increase in population density and traffic flow due to the clinic's presence. Based on our findings, we are confident that our current resources and infrastructure are more than capable of meeting the fire safety and emergency response demands of the proposed clinic and the community it will serve. We remain committed to maintaining our high standard of service and ensuring the safety of all residents and businesses in the area. Our dedicated team of firefighters, paramedics, and support staff will continue to respond promptly to any emergency situations that may arise, be it at the clinic or elsewhere in the vicinity. Should any changes or updates occur in the future, and you believe they may have an impact on our ability to provide fire department services, we kindly request that you keep us informed so that we can reassess and adapt our plans accordingly. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to assess the potential impact of the proposed clinic. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (661) 326-3611. Fire Department: Thank You, Ernie Medina Plans Examiner Bakersfield Fire Department City of Bakersfield email: emedina@bakersfieldfire.us web: www.bakersfieldcity.us phone: 661-326-3682 Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment F: USFWS Section 7.0 Consultation Letter In Reply Refer to: 08ESMF00- 2020-F-2169 June 2020 Christine Modovsky U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management Facilities Planning (003C2) 810 Vermont Street NW Washington DC 20420 christine.modovsky@va.gov Subject: Formal Consultation on the Bakersfield Outpatient Clinic, Kern County, California Dear Ms. Modovsky: This letter is in response to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) June 11, 2020, request for initiation of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed Bakersfield Outpatient Clinic in Kern County, California. At issue are the proposed project’s effects on the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (kit fox). This response is provided under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and in accordance with the implementing regulations pertaining to interagency cooperation (50 CFR 402). The federal action on which we are consulting is the construction and operation under a long-term lease of a VA outpatient clinic and associated parking on 6.92 acres in Bakersfield, California. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(j), you submitted a biological assessment for our review and requested concurrence with the findings presented therein. These findings conclude that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the kit fox. In considering your request, we based our evaluation on the following: 1) The June 11, 2020, letter from VA initiating consultation 2) The June 10, 2020, biological study conducted by ECORP Consulting, Inc 3) Other information available to the Service As stated in the consultation initiation letter, the developer will obtain third party coverage under the Metro Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) for the project’s effects to the kit fox when acquiring development permits from the City of Bakersfield. This includes paying the required habitat mitigation fee and implementation of all measures included in the MBHCP to reduce impacts to the kit fox. The Service issued an Incidental Take Permit (Permit Number PRT-786634) to the City of Bakersfield and Kern County on August 24, 1994, pursuant to section 10 of the Act. This permit authorized the incidental taking of kit fox “ in the course of otherwise lawful development and conservation activities…” During issuance of the permit to the City of Bakersfield and Kern County the Service analyzed the effects of permitted activities on federally listed species, including the kit fox, within the permit area in an intra-Service biological opinion issued on August 23, 1994. The Service has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that it is consistent with the development activities covered in the MBHCP and associated intra-Service biological opinion. As such, as long as the required habitat mitigation fees needed to obtain third party coverage under the MBHCP are paid, no further action is required from the VA, and the VA may consider its obligations under section 7 of the Act with regard to the proposed project to be complete. However, if the developer does not pay the necessary fees for the project to be covered under the MBHCP, additional formal consultation under section 7 of the Act would be necessary. If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Justin Sloan, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at (559) 221-1828 or the letterhead address. Sincerely , Patricia Cole Chief, San Joaquin Valley Division 1 Office of Construction & Facilities Management Facilities Planning (003C2) 810 Vermont Street NW, Washington DC 20420 June 11, 2020 (by email to jennifer_norris@fws.gov.) Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Reference: Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2020-SLI-1788 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 Project Name: Bakersfield Outpatient Clinic Subject: Request for formal consultation Dear Ms. Norris: This letter requests initiation of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on a proposed project to construct and operate a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinic in Bakersfield, CA (further described in #1 below). VA has determined that the project will result in adverse effects to the San Joaquin kit fox. Construction would comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP).1 A field survey identified no suitable habitat for 10 other listed species identified on the IPaC Official Species List for this location (attached); therefore, we have concluded “no effect” to those species. The following information is provided to support formal consultation in accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and FWS implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402): 1. Purpose of proposed project VA proposes to construct and operate under a long-term lease a 39,648-gross-square- foot outpatient clinic on one floor with 214 surface parking spaces in Bakersfield (Kern County), CA. 2. Location GPS coordinates: 35.410770, -119.057766 (latitude, longitude). Map showing extent of proposed project area: attached. The site is on the east side of Knudsen Drive, south of Olive Drive, in Bakersfield, CA 93308 (Kern County). 3. Description of habitat in proposed area The proposed 6.92-acre project site is directly adjacent to commercial development on the north and across Knudsen Drive from a municipal fire training facility to the west. The property is zoned M-2 Medium Industrial and is adjacent to property zoned M-3 Heavy Industrial to the west. 1 https://bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/community_development/habitat.htm 2 The parcel is undeveloped but is highly disturbed with many non-native grasses and weeds. A biological field survey was conducted the week of April 27, 2020, by a qualified field biologist who walked the entire site. Several burrow complexes were observed that are currently occupied by common California ground squirrels. These burrows also appeared suitable for occupation by San Joaquin kit. No kit fox or their sign (scat, tracks, prey remains) were observed; therefore, these burrows are considered to be “potential dens” for the San Joaquin kit fox. These potential dens are not avoidable in the proposed project’s design. 4. How the project would be carried out When applying for a grading or building permit from the City of Bakersfield, the developer would also initiate actions to comply with the MBHCP, including paying the Habitat Mitigation Fee as required, performing/submitting a Biological Clearance Survey, and implementing Species Protection Measures during construction, as well as all other MBHCP requirements. 5. Photographs Google street view, from west – image captured May 2019 3 We look forward to receiving your response. If you need additional information, please contact me at (202) 632-5352 or by email at christine.modovsky@va.gov. Sincerely, Christine Modovsky Environmental Engineer VA Office of Construction & Facilities Management Attachments: 1. Map of project area 2. FWS Official Species List 3. Biological field survey Photograph, from north – photo taken February 2020 Map of Project Area May 01, 2020 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713 In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2020-SLI-1788 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 Project Name: Bakersfield Outpatient Clinic Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 2 The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 3 ▪ Attachment(s): Official Species List 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 (916) 414-6600 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 2 Project Summary Consultation Code:08ESMF00-2020-SLI-1788 Event Code:08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 Project Name:Bakersfield Outpatient Clinic Project Type:DEVELOPMENT Project Description:VA proposes to construct and operate under a long-term lease a 39,648- gross-square-foot outpatient clinic on one floor with 214 surface parking spaces. The 6.92-acre site is extensively disturbed but undeveloped. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/35.41072539841197N119.05776770355138W Counties:Kern, CA 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 3 1. Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873 Endangered Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247 Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/40/office/11420.pdf Endangered Birds NAME STATUS Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749 Endangered Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened 1 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 4 Reptiles NAME STATUS Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625 Endangered Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482 Threatened Amphibians NAME STATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/205/office/11420.pdf Threatened Fishes NAME STATUS Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321 Threatened Crustaceans NAME STATUS Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498 Threatened Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Bakersfield Cactus Opuntia treleasei No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7799 Endangered San Joaquin Wooly-threads Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3746 Endangered 05/01/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-05536 5 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com June 10, 2020 2020-087 Richard Banchoff Project Manager ISI Professional Services 8280 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive, Suite 150 Fairfax, VA 22031 Via email: rbanchoff@isiwdc.com Subject: Biological Resources Documentation for a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (Solicitation #36C10F19Q0134), City of Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Banchoff: On behalf of ISI Professional Services (ISI), ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) conducted a biological study for the proposed Community-Based Outpatient Clinic being proposed along Knudsen Street in Bakersfield, Kern County, California (Attachment A: Figure 1. Project Vicinity). The U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) is seeking a lease for a build-to-suit facility on a site that is approximately 6.92 acres in size. The official species list obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system (consultation code 08ESMF00-2020-SLI-1788) identified threatened or endangered (T-E) plant and/or wildlife species that need to be evaluated in order to determine whether they may be affected by the proposed project. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), a Federal agency (in this case, VA) or its designated representative needs to determine whether their proposed projects may affect threatened and endangered species or designated Critical Habitat. The VA understands that there is a requirement to evaluate the project in accordance with ESA Section 7, as well as determine if there is a potential for significant environmental effects as defined in the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, an analysis of project effects on T-E species is required to encompass direct, indirect, interrelated, interdependent, and cumulative effects and to draw a conclusion and determination regarding listed federal species within a project action area. Effects determinations can be “No Effect”, “May Affect, Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect”, or “May Affect, Is Likely to Adversely Affect.” This report provides an effects determination for the T-E species identified as having potential to occur by the USFWS. Mr. Richard Banchoff 2020-087 June 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located within Bakersfield, Kern County, California, on the east side of Knudsen Drive and south of Olive Drive. The site corresponds to portions of Section 15 of Township 29 south, Range 27 east, Mt. Diablo Meridian and Baseline, of the Oildale, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 19711) (Attachment A: Figure 2. USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles). For reference, the approximate center of the Project is located at latitude 35.410299° and longitude -119.057907. The proposed 6.92-acre project site is directly adjacent to commercial development on the north and across Knudsen Drive from a municipal fire training facility to the west. The property is zoned M-2 Medium Industrial and is adjacent to property zoned M-3 Heavy Industrial to the west. METHODS Literature Review ECORP completed a literature review for the project site and surrounding area by using the USFWS IPaC online tool to identify a list of threatened or endangered (T-E) plant and/or wildlife species identified for the site which need to be evaluated for this study. ECORP also queried the latest versions of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory. In addition, the biologist conducting the literature review researched available information on existing or proposed federal or state nature preserves or scenic rivers, unique ecological sites, geologic features, breeding animal concentrations, champion trees, parks, forests, or wildlife areas on the site or in the site vicinity. ECORP also examined aerial photography that was publicly available, in order to assess the potential habitat areas that were present on the site. Several of the species identified during the data search were eliminated from consideration as potentially occurring based on lack of habitat shown in aerial imagery. Based on the literature review, the biologists at ECORP identified a list of sensitive and/or listed species that could occur on the proposed project site prior to conducting the field survey. 1 USGS. 1955, photorevised 1971. “Oildale, California” 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. Mr. Richard Banchoff 2020-087 June 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com Field Survey An ECORP biologist with knowledge of the species and resources within the Bakersfield portion of the Central Valley of California visited the site and checked for visually obvious signs of T-E species that were potentially occurring in accordance with the literature review. The biologist walked the entire site, taking notes on the habitats present, signs of any T-E species occupancy and taking photographs to document the site conditions. A list of plant and wildlife species observed within the project area was also maintained during the site visit. Any special-status species detected were documented using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device. The survey also identified potential for any areas of suitable habitat for T-E species that could require focused wildlife surveys in order to definitively determine presence. FINDINGS Literature Review The IPaC list (see Attachment B) identified the following 11 T-E species for the project site: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus), Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia treleasei) and San Joaquin wooly-threads (Monolopia congdonii). No Critical Habitats for T-E species were identified as present within the IPaC list for the site. Critical Habitat encompasses the geographic areas occupied by a T-E species at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of specific T-E species and that may need special management or protection. According to the CNDDB, a total of 19 special-status species have been recorded within the Oildale, California USGS quadrangle. Most of these species are not listed at the federal level but are considered to be California state species of special concern or are listed by other entities and have relatively low levels of sensitivity. The exceptions are the San Joaquin kit fox, Bakersfield cactus and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The search also identified the crotch bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), which is a candidate species for federal listing, as being recorded within the quadrangle. The CNPS Online Inventory identified five plant species that have been recorded within the Oildale, California quadrangle, including Bakersfield cactus and San Joaquin woolly-threads, both of which are federally listed as endangered species. The search also identified California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri) and San Joaquin bluecurls (Trichostema ovatum). None of these latter three species are listed at the federal level, nor are they listed at state levels. Mr. Richard Banchoff 2020-087 June 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com Based on our review of public information, there are no existing or proposed federal or state nature preserves or scenic rivers, unique ecological sites, geologic features, breeding animal concentrations, champion trees, parks, forests, or other special wildlife areas on the site or in the site vicinity. Field Survey ECORP biologist/mammal expert Phil Wasz visited the site on April 29, 2020. Mr. Wasz is a wildlife biologist with nine years of experience surveying for wildlife throughout the Western United States. He specializes in leading and conducting biological surveys, construction monitoring, and habitat assessments for listed and sensitive wildlife species in southern California, including Mohave ground squirrel, giant kangaroo rat, burrowing owl, desert tortoise, kit fox, nesting birds, and various other small mammal, reptile, amphibian, and bird species. Mr. Wasz has conducted numerous similar surveys within California’s Great Central Valley, for both public and private entities. The site was highly disturbed with many non-native grasses and weeds present and is considered to be a non-native grassland vegetation community, with disturbed areas mainly present along the boundaries of the site near Knudsen Drive. Common plant species observed included wild brome (Bromus sp.), tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) and other similar weedy species. Due to being completely surrounded by urban developments, the site is considered an island of habitat that is otherwise isolated from similar habitat areas. Special Status Species During the field survey, none of the species on the IPaC list were observed, nor were any other special status species observed. Due to the site being highly disturbed, most special status species are expected to be absent. No sign or habitat for any federal listed species was found on the site but potential habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, consisting of suitable potential burrows, was observed. Several burrows and burrow complexes occur across most of the site, most of which are of suitable size and distribution to be potentially used by San Joaquin kit fox, however no kit fox or their sign (scat, tracks, prey remains) were observed anywhere on the project site. These burrows could have been formerly occupied kit fox, though they did not appear to be occupied at the time of the survey. The burrows were mostly occupied by California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), as indicated by visual presence of these animals and by presence of sign such as scat and/or tracks. Nevertheless, these burrows and burrow complexes are considered to be “potential dens” for the San Joaquin kit fox. Because the dens prevail across the majority of the site, and the entire property is proposed to be developed, these potential dens are not avoidable in the proposed project’s design. Mr. Richard Banchoff 2020-087 June 10, 2020 Page 5 of 6 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com PROJECT EFFECTS The following table (Table 1) provides a summary of the potential effects of the project on species identified during the IPaC search. Table 1: Determination of Project Effects on Federally Listed Species Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Present/ Absent Determination PLANTS Bakersfield cactus Opuntia treleasei FE A No Effect San Joaquin woolly-threads Monolopia congdonii FE A No Effect INVERTEBRATES Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FE A No Effect AMPHIBIANS California red-legged frog Rana draytoni FT A No Effect REPTILES Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia silus FE A No Effect Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas FT A FISH Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus FT A No Effect BIRDS Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE A No Effect Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FT, SE A No Effect MAMMALS San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides FE A No Effect San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotic mutica FE P May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Absent/Present FE Federal Endangered SE State Endangered P Present FT Federal Threatened SSC California Species of Concern A Absent FC Federal Candidate CH Critical Habitat Mr. Richard Banchoff 2020-087 June 10, 2020 Page 6 of 6 215 North 5th Street ● Redlands, CA 92374 ● Tel: (909) 307-0046 ● Fax: (909) 307-0056 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com Of all the T-E species identified within the literature search, only the San Joaquin kit fox has the potential to be affected by the project. Potential dens that could be used by kit fox are not avoidable in the proposed project’s design. RECOMMENDATIONS Although the site contains several burrows that are potentially suitable for San Joaquin kit fox, the potential for kit fox occupancy is considered low due to the presence of intense urban development in the immediate site vicinity. Even though the kit fox appears to be absent from the site at this time, due to lack of evidence of occupation, the time of site-clearing and subsequent development is currently unknown. Therefore, the determination for kit fox for the project, at this project site, is “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.” For these reasons we recommend completing the following mitigation measure: MM-01: When applying for a grading or building permit from the City of Bakersfield, the developer would also initiate actions to comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP),2 including paying the Habitat Mitigation Fee as required, performing/submitting a Biological Clearance Survey, and implementing Species Protection Measures during construction, as well as all other MBHCP requirements. We recommend formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS on kit fox use of the site as early as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this report. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at (909) 307-0046 or staylor@ecorpconsulting.com. Sincerely, ECORP Consulting, Inc. Scott I. Taylor Senior Biological Program Manager 2 https://bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/community_development/habitat.htm ATTACHMENT A – FIGURES Project Location Figure 1. Project VicinityLocation: N:\2020\2020-087 Bakersfield VA Outpatient Clinic\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\BVAO_Vicinity.mxd (TR)-trotellini 5/18/2020 Map Date: 5/18/2020 P a c i f i c O c e a n Size of printing extent and margins differs with printer settings, please adjust margins if necessary.NOTE: This map is set up in NAD 1983 California Teale Albers.Please Change to Define Your Local State Plane or UTM Coordinate System. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community VA Bakersfield Community-Based Outpatient Clinic I 0 5 10 Miles ^_ Project Location Figure 2. Project LocationLocation: N:\2020\2020-087 Bakersfield VA Outpatient Clinic\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\BVAO_Location.mxd (TR)-trotellini 5/18/2020 Map Date: 5/18/2020 Size of printing extent and margins differs with printer settings, please adjust margins if necessary.NOTE: This map is set up in NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet.Please Change to Define Your Local State Plane or UTM Coordinate System. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,(c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community VA Bakersfield Community-Based Outpatient Clinic I 0 1,000 2,000 Feet ATTACHMENT B – IPaC List ATTACHMENT C - CNDDB Search Results Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Anniella grinnelli Bakersfield legless lizard G2G3 S2S3 None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 393 410 20 S:7 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 5 7 0 0 Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake G5T2 S2 None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 400 900 260 S:3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 Astragalus hornii var. hornii Horn's milk-vetch GUT1 S1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive 400 400 28 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl G4 S3 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern 380 540 1989 S:4 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 0 Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee G3G4 S1S2 None Candidate Endangered 400 900 276 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk G5 S3 None Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern 400 400 2518 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum hispid salty bird's-beak G2T1 S1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive 400 400 35 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Eriastrum hooveri Hoover's eriastrum G3 S3 Delisted None Rare Plant Rank - 4.2 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 47 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat G5T4 S3S4 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern WBWG_H-High Priority 296 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard G1 S1 Endangered Endangered CDFW_FP-Fully Protected IUCN_EN-Endangered 40 750 380 S:2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 Query Criteria:Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Oildale (3511941)) Report Printed on Monday, May 18, 2020 Page 1 of 2Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 11/1/2020 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Helminthoglypta callistoderma Kern shoulderband G1 S1 None None IUCN_EN-Endangered 375 375 3 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Imperata brevifolia California satintail G4 S3 None None Rare Plant Rank - 2B.1 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden USFS_S-Sensitive 400 400 32 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat G5 S4 None None IUCN_LC-Least Concern WBWG_M-Medium Priority 400 400 238 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woollythreads G2 S2 Endangered None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley 400 400 111 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei Bakersfield cactus G5T1 S1 Endangered Endangered Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 420 915 62 S:7 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 6 6 0 1 Perognathus inornatus San Joaquin Pocket Mouse G2G3 S2S3 None None BLM_S-Sensitive IUCN_LC-Least Concern 610 623 127 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 Spea hammondii western spadefoot G3 S3 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_NT-Near Threatened 378 378 1359 S:1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Taxidea taxus American badger G5 S3 None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern 592 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox G4T2 S2 Endangered Threatened 380 890 1018 S:21 0 7 5 1 0 8 6 15 21 0 0 Report Printed on Monday, May 18, 2020 Page 2 of 2Commercial Version -- Dated May, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 11/1/2020 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment G: SHPO Letter State of California Natural Resources Agency Edmund G. Brown Jr.,Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 Telephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053 calshpo.ohp@parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov Lisa Ann L. Mangat,Director October 3, 2018 Reply in Reference To: VA_2018_0629_001 Samuel Perminter Department of Veteran Affairs Team Lead Western Division Office of Real Property 425 I Street NW, Room 6W.511 Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Section 106 Consultation for Construction of Community Based Outpatient Clinic, 5303 East Brundage Lane or 5252 Knudsen Drive, Bakersfield, Kern County Dear Mr. Perminter: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is continuing consultation in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. §306108), as amended, and its implementing regulation found at 36 CFR Part 800. After reviewing the VA’s most recent response (September 20. 2018) to the SHPO‘s request for additional supporting documentation for the proposed construction of a Community Based Outpatient Clinic in Bakersfield, the SHPO concurs with the VA’s finding of no historic properties affected pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4 (d)(1). Please be advised that under certain circumstances, such as an unanticipated discovery or a change in project description, the VA may have future responsibilities for this undertaking under 36 CFR Part 800. If there are any questions, contact Ed Carroll at (916) 445-7006 or Ed.Carroll@parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, Julianne Polanco State Historic Preservation Officer DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Office of Construction & Facilities Management Washington DC 20420 Figure 5. Brundage Lane Figure 6. Knudsen Drive Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment H: Biological Resources Response to Comments and Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Results Letter McCORMICK B I O L O G I C A L, I N C. Biological Sciences – Inventory, Permitting, and Planning P.O. Box 80983, Bakersfield, California 933803600 Pegasus Drive, Suite 12, Bakersfield, California 93308 Office: (661) 589-4065Fax: (661) 588-2072E-mail: admin@mccormickbiologicalinc.com August 2, 2023 Mr. Steve Doctor SASD Development Group, LLC 4895 Pacific Hwy San Diego, CA 92110 Subject: Bakersfield VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic EIR - Biological Resources Response to Comments Mr. Doctor, McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) has prepared responses to selected comments received in Comment Letter D pertaining to biological resources. These responses represent MBI’s professional opinion regarding the resources of the Project site and vicinity. For reference, my resume containing selected experience is attached (Attachment 1). Comment D-24: The site condi�ons were assessed based on the single reconnaissance level and the Biological Resources Evalua�on (BRE) provides background detail regarding the habitat requirements for each special- status species. A complete literature review was conducted to iden�fy all of the poten�ally occurring special- status species in the region of the Project. The literature review resulted in iden�fica�on of several species that could occur in the region of the project. This list was further analyzed to assess each species’ poten�al to occur based on whether the project is in the published range and contains habitat requirements to support each species. The observa�ons of the physical and bio�c environment during the reconnaissance survey by an appropriately qualified biologists (those with years of experience in a region) is a standard approach to assessing poten�al occurrence on an individual site. The impact analysis in the Biological Resources Evalua�on acknowledges that one site visit cannot be used to determine that a species is not present and assumed that site use or occupa�on may indeed occur prior to site development. For the species iden�fied with any poten�al to occur, poten�al impacts were analyzed. The BRE provides a sufficient amount of baseline informa�on for each of these species to determine if the described exis�ng condi�ons could support special- status species. As stated in the BRE, burrowing owls are year-round residents in much of California, including the Central Valley and California is important to wintering owls (Shuford & Gardali 2008). As such, this species could occupy the California ground squirrel burrows found during the reconnaissance survey at any �me of the year. Therefore, the BRE reached the accurate conclusion that suitable habitat was present and the species has poten�al to occupy the site. Given the site condi�ons, no number of nega�ve surveys during any season would eliminate the poten�al for this species to occur onsite. As such, impacts were properly iden�fied and mi�ga�on measures proposed to reduce the poten�al impacts to burrowing owls that may subsequently occupy the site to less than significant. Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 2 A site visit to assess presence of bumble bees due to the poten�al for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) was conducted on May 26, 2023. The survey was conducted by Randi McCormick and Ashleigh Pryor, biologists with McCormick Biological, Inc. Habitat was found to be poor for the species based on lack of likely floral resources. No bumble bees of any species were observed during the survey. A complete results leter will be submited under separate cover. Comment D-25: Sec�on 3.2 on Page 15 of the BRE states that the project footprint iden�fied (see Figures 1- 1 and 1-3) and a 100-foot buffer were walked if accessible and the buffer was evaluated using binoculars if not accessible. No fences or other hindrances were noted and the resul�ng area walked included the en�re project with the excep�on of the exis�ng pavement on Knudsen Drive. The 100-foot buffer covered the future alignments of Landco Drive and Street “A”. Comment D-26: Regarding the baseline condi�ons as they pertain to biological resources, the periodic disking and other urban disturbances that occurred on the project prior to the October 2021 site visit and over the subsequent months, the condi�ons at the �me of the NOP (August 2022) would not have been more conducive to special-status species occurring than those observed during the documented site visit. Based on my 35 years of experience in the urban Bakersfield area, remnant patches of open space that remain in the urban area take years to substan�ally change in vegeta�on composi�on and/or habitat quality without ac�ve protec�on and management (see atached resume). They are typically former agricultural lands which have ceased produc�on for decades, but the effects of that disturbance and con�nued disturbance from human access, domes�c dogs and cats, unauthorized dumping, and offroad access don’t allow for substan�al recovery. Taking those observa�ons into considera�on, the 10 months between the October 2021 site visit and the August 2022 NOP is not substan�al enough to materially improve site condi�ons or habitat quality at this loca�on. Further, higher than normal rainfall in the winter and spring of 2023 did not result in a substan�al improvement in the site condi�ons based on a site visit conducted on May 26, 2023 by MBI Senior Biologist Ashleigh Pryor and Principal Biologist Randi McCormick. Although there was an observable response by vegeta�on and the overall vegeta�ve height and cover was higher than observed during the previous site visit, the composi�on remained dominated by non-na�ve mustards and invasive weeds. The overarching influence on habitat quality remains the surface management. Comment D-27: The “poten�al to occur” determina�on for special-status plant species was not made based only on the condi�ons at the �me of the site visit. Habitat type, soils, topography, and the disturbance level in general were considered in the determina�on, as stated in the Biological Resources Evalua�on. It should be noted that while drought condi�ons may affect presence in any given year making �ming of surveys to determine presence important, drought condi�ons are not used to determine overall suitability or poten�al to occur. The condi�ons that were used in the Biological Resources Evalua�on to determine suitability for the iden�fied special-status plants do not change with the precipita�on, as exis�ng physical characteris�cs and site history were used to determine suitability along with the resul�ng poten�al to occur. It is appropriate and necessary to use professional judgment on any site, regardless of ephemeral observa�ons, to draw conclusions regarding the poten�al for any given species to occur. Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 3 CDFW’s (2018) minimum standards cited by the commentor contain a process for determining when botanical surveys to detect special-status plants and sensi�ve natural communi�es would be needed prior to project ini�a�on. These standards provide the following guidance: Evaluate the need for botanical field surveys prior to the commencement of any ac�vi�es that may modify vegeta�on, such as clearing, mowing, or ground-breaking ac�vi�es. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey when: • Natural (or naturalized) vegeta�on occurs in an area that may be directly or indirectly affected by a project (project area), and it is unknown whether or not special status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es occur in the project area; • Special status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es have historically been iden�fied in a project area; or • Special status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es occur in areas with similar physical and biological proper�es as a project area. The Biological Resources Evalua�on clearly iden�fies the exis�ng site condi�ons and why these condi�ons preclude the occurrence of any special-status plant species, showing that it is not unknown whether any such species occur on the project (bullet 1). Addressing bullet 2, no special-status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es have been documented on the project and bullet 3, no special status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es were iden�fied that occur in areas with similar physical and biological proper�es compared to the project site. Therefore, conduc�ng mul�ple surveys is not warranted to iden�fy poten�al impacts to special-status plants or sensi�ve natural communi�es. Comment D-29: For all species considered, Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the Biological Resources Evalua�on describe species habitat requirements and compare those requirements to observed physical condi�ons documented during the October 2021 reconnaissance survey. Conclusions shown in these tables are drawn from habitat requirements compared to exis�ng condi�ons with further analysis in the text for special status species with any poten�al to occur. While the �me of day and temperature would have no influence on the observed condi�ons or physical characteris�cs documented, the site visit was conducted on a partly cloudy day between 10:32 am and 11:54 am with a temperature of 60°F and light winds. From the photos included in Appendix D of the Biological Resources Evalua�on, the condi�ons were partly cloudy and visibility was more than adequate to view the en�re site. Comment D-30: All of the special-status species iden�fied in the literature review conducted for the October 2021 repor�ng were considered. The following table addresses the species iden�fied in the comment leter. No significant impacts are an�cipated to occur as a result of the Project a�er mi�ga�on. Mi�ga�on measures included in the DEIR would result in protec�on of all of the species below that may occur on or near the Project: Species Status Notes Monarch buterfly Danaus plexippus FC Wintering has been reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023) approximately 4.5 miles east- southeast of the Project in eucalyptus trees at a city park. No Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 4 eucalyptus or other suitable trees were found onsite for overwintering. No milkweed (Asclepias spp.) plants were iden�fied during site visits and no breeding has been recorded in a 10-mile radius. The site does not support any iden�fied Monarch burrerfly nectar sources. Therefore, this species is not expected, and no impacts are an�cipated. California gull Larus caifornicus BCC, LC No nes�ng by this species has been reported within a 10-mile radius of the Project (CNDDB) and no nes�ng habitat is present (Zeiner et al. 1990). Although the Project site meets the minimum requirements for foraging, this species is likely to forage throughout the city of Bakersfield in landfills, stormwater and water treatment impoundments, fields, and parking lots and has been documented throughout the city (iNaturalist 2023a, ebird 2023). No significant impacts are an�cipated. Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum WL, LC This species winters in the interior of California, including Bakersfield but is not expected to nest on or near the Project as no suitable nes�ng habitat is present. The Project addi�onally does not meet the minimum requirements for foraging (Zeiner et al. 1990). Sigh�ngs in the vicinity are concentrated around the Kern River and other permanent water sources (iNaturalist 2023b, ebird 2023) and this species’ popula�on trend is increasing (BirdLife Intera�onal 2018a). Therefore, no impacts are an�cipated. Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP, LC No suitable nes�ng habitat is present on the Project site. The Project site meets the minimum requirements for foraging and the species is likely to occasionally forage in the vicinity (Zeiner et al. 1990). Sigh�ngs of the species are rela�vely common throughout all seasons in and around Bakersfield (ebird 2023) and it worldwide popula�on status is considered stable (BirdLife Interna�onal 2018b). Although occasional foraging may occur on or near the Project site, the loss of this habitat would not result in significant impacts to the species. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP, LC No suitable nes�ng habitat is present on the Project site and typical foraging habitat for this species is not currently present (Zeiner et al. 1990). Cooper’s hawks are known to nest and forage in mature trees and throughout the urban area of Bakersfield where vegeta�on is suitable. Sigh�ngs of the species are rela�vely common throughout all seasons in and around established neighborhoods in the city (ebird 2023) and its popula�on trend is increasing (BirdLife Interna�onal 2016a). Development of the Project with its associated landscaping may actually increase the availability of suitable habitat for this species in the vicinity. No significant impacts are an�cipated. Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP, LC This species is extremely common throughout all habitat types in California. It is very flexible in selec�on of nes�ng substrate, from rela�vely undisturbed forests and riparian areas to manmade structures (Zeiner et al. 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and no unoccupied raptor nests were observed on the Project or surrounding area during the site visits. Foraging habitat is present throughout the city of Bakersfield including on the Project site. Its popula�on trend is considered increasing (BirdLife Interna�onal 2016b). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 5 Implementa�on of BIO MM-2 would result in avoiding impacts to nes�ng individuals should they subsequently nest on or near the Project site. Barn owl Tyto alba BOP, LC This species’ requirements are flexible, and it is extremely common throughout all habitat types, including urban situa�ons. In urban areas, nes�ng typically occurs in structures, crevices, on ledges of structures, or in trees or snags. Roosts in similar loca�ons and is ac�ve year-round (Zeiner et al. 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and nes�ng onsite is not expected. Foraging habitat is present throughout the city of Bakersfield including on the Project site. This species’ popula�on trend is considered stable (BirdLife Interna�onal 2019). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. No impacts would occur. American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP, LC This species is extremely common throughout all habitat types in California. It is very flexible in selec�on of nes�ng substrate, nes�ng in cavi�es and crevices trees and manmade structures (Zeiner et al. 1990). No likely trees or structures are present on the Project site and no poten�ally suitable cavi�es were observed on the Project or surrounding area during the site visits. Foraging habitat is present throughout the city of Bakersfield including on the Project site. This species’ popula�on trend is consider stable (BirdLife Interna�onal 2016c). The loss of the Project site as foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. Implementa�on of BIO MM-2 would result in avoiding impacts to nes�ng individuals should they subsequently nest on or near the Project site. Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP, LC California is not included in the breeding range of this species (Zeiner et al. 1990). Main prey consists of small birds, with some other items selected (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species is occasionally observed during winter in the city (ebird 2023) and its popula�on status is considered stable (BirdLife Interna�onal 2021a). The loss of the Project site as winter foraging habitat would not be significant. Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BCC, CFP, LC Kern County is not included in the breeding range of this species (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species occasionally reported in city (ebird 2023) and its popula�on status is considered increasing (BirdLife Interna�onal 2021b). The loss of the Project site as winter foraging habitat would not be significant. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC, SSC2, NT This species nests in shrubs or low trees with dense foliage (Zeiner et al. 1990), none of which are present on the Project site. They are occasionally observed within the city, primarily in associa�on with the Kern River, and rarely in urban situa�ons (ebird 2023). The popula�on trend is decreasing (BirdLife Interna�onal (2020). This species is not expected on or near the Project and no impacts would occur. California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL, LC The horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) nests on the ground in the open, typically in associa�on with grassland or other open, sparse habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). The breeding season distribu�on of the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) is limited to the northwestern and southwestern corners of Kern County (Grinnell and Miller 1944); therefore, the Project is outside of the Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 6 breeding range for this race. This race of horned larks may forage outside of the breeding range, and horned larks in general are infrequently reported in the city. As such, the loss of the Project site as poten�al foraging habitat for this species would not be significant. No impacts would occur. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macro�s mu�ca FE, CT This species was evaluated and poten�al impacts addressed in the Biological Resources Evalua�on and DEIR. Abbrevia�ons: BOP – Birds of Prey BCC – USFWS Bird Species of Conserva�on Concern CT – State listed as threatened FC – Federal Candidate for Lis�ng FE – Federally listed as endangered LC – Least Concern (Interna�onal Union of Concerned Scien�sts Red List) SSC – California Species of Special Concern SSC2 – California Bird Species of Special Concern priority 2 (Shuford and Gardali 2008) NT – Near Threatened (Interna�onal Union of Concerned Scien�sts Red List) WL - Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008) Lack of observa�ons during the reconnaissance survey does not change the poten�al for impacts and more extensive surveys are not likely to reveal uniden�fied impacts given the findings shown in the table above. The Project site is not, in fact, part of a wildlife connec�vity corridor. Its proximity near State Route 99, surrounding urban uses, general disturbed nature of other open lands, train tracks, and extremely heavily trafficked roads creates a risk to any terrestrial wildlife that may inhabit the site. The wildlife that typically inhabit this type of site undertake smaller movements and, other than San Joaquin kit fox, do not require large blocks of habitat to persist. While San Joaquin kit fox may require larger habitat blocks to persist in natural lands, within the City of Bakersfield, they use urban landscapes such as schools, golf courses, open lots, canals, railroad rights-of-way, and other areas impacted by urban development. The area is already heavily urbanized, and human pressures are well-established. As described above, the sensi�ve bird species that are known from the city are found throughout the urban area and there is no reason to suspect that the development of this Project site will alter those occurrences and the poten�al for those species to con�nue using the urban area is various capaci�es. The site is not in or associated with any known wildlife corridors nor is it iden�fied as an “Essen�al Connec�vity Area” in the statewide strategy for preserving such areas (Spencer et al. 2010). Comment D-35: As stated in the response to comment D-24, burrowing owls may occupy areas in this part of California with poten�ally suitable habitat at any �me. As such, a mi�ga�on measure that addresses poten�al occupa�on at the �me of ini�al project disturbance is appropriate for implementa�on of avoidance of individual burrowing owls. Comment D-39: Open space in general is not necessarily compensable if not occupied by listed species. Compensa�on is included in BIO MM-5 for impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat if known dens are found. Compensa�on for habitat disturbance may indeed occur if a consulta�on is required due to Crotch bumble bee presence; however, this would be specula�ve as to the effec�veness based on the current known informa�on about Crotch bumble bee. For the remainder of the poten�ally occurring special-status species, Mr. Steve Doctor August 2, 2023 Page 7 either no significant impacts are iden�fied or mi�ga�on measures have been proposed to reduce the impacts to these species to a level of less than significant. Comment D-41: See D-39. Mi�ga�on in the form of compensa�on land has been standard prac�ce throughout the life of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conserva�on Plan and throughout the San Joaquin Valley, including Kern County through other similar FESA and CESA permits (BLM Programma�c Oil and Gas Biological Opinion; California High Speed Rail Fresno to Bakersfield ITP and BO, and several individual project permits). The expira�on of the MBHCP does not diminish the effec�veness of this standard approach to mi�ga�ng for loss of habitat for listed species. Comment D-43: MBI had no direct contact with agencies. However, a comment leter was received from CDFW (October 18, 2022). All three state listed species and one California species of special concern iden�fied in the comment leter were addressed in the Biological Resources Evalua�on. Please let me know if you have any ques�ons regarding the informa�on contained in this leter. Thank you, Randi McCormick Principal Biologist Attachment 1 Randi McCormick Resume Attachment 2 Literature Cited BirdLife Interna�onal. 2021a. Falco columbarius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T22696453A154505853. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021- 3.RLTS.T22696453A154505853.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2021b. Falco peregrinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T45354964A206217909. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021- 3.RLTS.T45354964A206217909.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2020. Lanius ludovicianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22705042A179538598. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 3.RLTS.T22705042A179538598.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2019. Tyto alba (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T22688504A155542941. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 3.RLTS.T22688504A155542941.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2018a. Nannopterum auritus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22696776A133552919. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2018b. Cathartes aura. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22697627A131941613. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T22697627A131941613.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2016a. Accipiter cooperii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22695656A93521264. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22695656A93521264.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2016b. Buteo jamaicensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22695933A93534834. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22695933A93534834.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. BirdLife Interna�onal. 2016c. Falco sparverius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22696395A93559037. htps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22696395A93559037.en. Accessed on 31 July 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). (2023). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles (Oildale, Famoso, Gosford, Lamont, North of Oildale, Oil Center, Knob Hill, Rosedale, Stevens) Sacramento, CA: CDFW eBird. 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribu�on and abundance [web applica�on]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: htp://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: July 31, 2023). iNaturalist. (2023a). htps://www.inaturalist.org/observa�ons?place_id=2758&subview=map& taxon_id=4385. California Gull Observa�ons in Kern County, CA. Accessed 31 July 2023. iNaturalist. (2023b). htps://www.inaturalist.org/observa�ons?place_id=2758&quality_grade=research& subview=map&taxon_id=1454382. Double-crested cormorant Observa�ons in Kern County, CA. Accessed 31 July 2023. Shuford, W. D., & Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and dis�nct popula�ons of birds of immediate conserva�on concern in California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rus�gian-Romsos, J. Stritholt, M. Parisi, and A. Petler. 2010. California Essen�al Habitat Connec�vity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transporta�on, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administra�on. Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Rela�onships System). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game McCORMICK B I O L O G I C A L, I N C. Biological Sciences – Inventory, Permitting, and Planning P.O. Box 80983, Bakersfield, California 93380 ▪ 3600 Pegasus Drive, Suite 12, Bakersfield, California 93308 Office: (661) 589-4065Fax: (661) 588-2072 ▪ E-mail: admin@mcbioinc.com August 7, 2023 Mr. Steve Doctor SASD Development Group, LLC 4895 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 Subject: Results Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey – Bakersfield VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic At your request, McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) completed a site visit and visual survey to assess for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) at the VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (Project) property located in Bakersfield, California. The project is located within the range of Crotch’s bumble bee, a species that formerly occurred extensively throughout much of California (rarely in the deserts or far northern California) but has been reduced to scattered occurrences in a portion of its former range (Xerces Society 2023a). This species is a state candidate for listing as threatened or endangered (CNDDB 2023). Bumble bees use small mammal burrows, debris piles (such as wood or rock), and other cover for nesting during the spring and summer. The period that colonies are generally active ranges from April through August (CDFW 2023). The entire site was surveyed on foot, with survey methods consisting of walking belt transects spaced approximately 100 feet apart over the entire proposed project location, including and a 100-foot buffer where access was permitted. Plants were identified at least to genus, and 100% of the site was visually evaluated to assess potential suitability for Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveyors walked at a slow pace, and attempted to locate and identify all flying insects. Additionally, all small mammal burrows and debris piles were examined to assess whether bumble bees were entering or exiting. The site was surveyed on May 26, 2023 by Randi McCormick and Ashleigh Pryor, two biologists familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and habitat preferences (Attachment 1). Conditions during the site visit were clear, temperature ranged between 75 and 78°F, and winds were low (0-4 mph). The site is located in a disked field that had some recovering vegetation (Photos, Attachment 2). Several plant species were observed flowering during the survey. Plant species identified during the survey are shown in Table 1. None of the genera observed are typical of those known to be associated with Crotch’s bumble bee (Xerces Society 2023b). Several insects were observed (butterflies, wasps, lady bug, dragonfly, European honey bee, grasshopper, damselfly); however, no bumble bees of any species were observed. Several California ground squirrel burrows were observed. Each of these burrow complexes were monitored for potential bumble bee occupation, but no bumble bees were found. Mr. Steve Doctor August 7, 2023 Page 2 Table 1. Plant Species Observed During Site Visit Conducted on May 26, 2023 Scientific name Common name Amaranthus sp. Amsinckia sp. Farmer’s fireweed Avena barbatus Slender wild oats Bromus rubens Red brome Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Datura wrightii Jimson weed Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed Hirschfeldia incana Summer mustard Hordeum murinum Farmer’s foxtail Salsola sp. Russian thistle Sisymbrium irio London rocket Vulpia myuros Rat-tail fescue Overall, habitat conditions onsite were poor. Although small mammal burrows were present, the flowering resources were not typical of those known to be used by Crotch’s bumble bee. Site occupation by this species is not suspected at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide biological consulting services. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully, Randi McCormick Principal Biologist Mr. Steve Doctor August 7, 2023 Page 3 References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2023). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6. Available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. Accessed on August 7, 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). July 2023. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA Xerces Society. (2023a). California Bumble Bee Atlas. https://www.cabumblebeeatlas.org/project- highlights.html. Accessed on August 7, 2023. Xerces Society. (2023b). Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii. https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/app /#/species/profile/crotchii. Accessed on August 7, 2023. Attachment 1 Resumes Attachment 2 Photographs Photo 1. Representative Site Photo Photo 2. Representative Site Photo. Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment I: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 2023 VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC PREPARED BY: T&B PLANNING, INC. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model for the Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project City of Bakersfield, California Prepared For: SASD Development Group, LLC 4895 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 Prepared By: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 August 1, 2023 Abstract The Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project site encompasses a total of approximately 10.05 gross acres within the City of Bakersfield, Kern County. It should be noted that a study area of 9.0 acres was used in this report as the 10.05 gross acres includes road improvements (1.05 acres) on the perimeter of the site; agriculture cannot occur on public roads. The Project site comprises two (2) contiguous parcels located west of State Route 99 (SR-99) and southeast of the intersection of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive. The Project consists of an application for a Site Plan Review (Site Plan Review No. 21-0399). Approval of this application would allow for the development of a community-based medical outpatient clinic designed to have a gross building floor area of up to 39,648 square feet (s.f.) with a net usable area of 30,100 s.f. The Project’s design would include 214 parking stalls, including 184 standard stalls, 6 motorcycle stalls, 19 accessible standard stalls, and 5 accessible van stalls. The Project is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this report, the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is used as an evaluation tool to determine if the subject property qualifies as an important agricultural land resource. Based on the methodology established by the California LESA Model, this report concludes that the Project site does not qualify as an important agricultural land resource; Project impacts on important agricultural land resources and conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use would not be considered significant. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Page 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Document Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Agriculture in California ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Williamson Act ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Farmland Classification ..................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 LESA Model ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System ....................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE) ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA) ................................................................................................................................. 6 4.0 Project Site Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Land Evaluation (LE) ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4.1.1 Land Capability Classification ............................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Storie Index ................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Site Assessment (SA) ........................................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.1 Project Size .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.2.2 Water Resource Availability ................................................................................................................ 12 4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land ........................................................................................................... 12 4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land ........................................................................................... 12 4.3 Total LESA Score ................................................................................................................................................. 14 5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 14 6.0 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 FIGURES Figure Number/Title Page Figure 1 Aerial Photograph ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program Map ............................................................................ 4 Figure 3 Zone of Influence ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Resources Land ........................................................... 13 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield ii TABLES Table Number/Title Page Table 3-1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units ................................................... 6 Table 3-2 Project Size Scoring ................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3-3 Water Resources Availability Scoring ................................................................................................ 7 Table 3-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score ................................................................................................ 8 Table 3-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score ............................................................................... 10 Table 4-1 Land Capability Classification Score ................................................................................................. 11 Table 4-2 Storie Index Score..................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4-3 Project Size Score ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score .............................................................................................. 12 Table 4-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score ............................................................................... 14 Table 4-6 Total LESA Score Sheet – Project Site .............................................................................................. 14 Table 5-1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds ................................................................................... 14 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Document Purpose The Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project (hereafter, “Project”) includes an application for a Site Plan Review (Site Plan Review No. 21-0399). Approval of this application would allow for the development of a community-based medical outpatient clinic designed to have a gross building floor of up to 39,648 square feet (s.f.) with a net usable area of 30,100 s.f. The Project’s design would include 214 parking stalls, including 184 standard stalls, 6 motorcycle stalls, 19 accessible standard stalls, and 5 accessible van stalls. The purpose of this Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is threefold: 1) to determine the presence or absence of important agricultural land resources on the Project site; 2) assess potential effects, if any, to any important agricultural land resources that may be present on the Project site; and 3) if any impacts to important agricultural land resources would occur, determine the significance of impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a) requires that environmental documentation “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines definition of environment “means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance.” (emphasis added, CEQA Guidelines § 15360). Per the CEQA Guidelines, the Project will result in a significant effect on the environment if the site contains important agricultural land resources that would be converted to a non-agricultural use. According to CEQA Guidelines § 21060.1(a), “agricultural land” is defined as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California. 1.2 Project Location The 10.05 gross-acre Project site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels west of State Route 99 (SR-99) and southeast of the intersection of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive in the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. Specifically, the Project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-020-28 and -30. (See Figure 1, Aerial Photograph). It should be noted that the study area used in this report encompasses 9.0 acres within the APN boundaries as the 10.05 gross acres includes road improvements (1.05 acres) on the perimeter of the site; agriculture cannot occur on public roads. 1.3 Project Summary The Project involves Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 to allow for the development of a Veteran Affairs (VA) community-based medical outpatient clinic on the 10.05-acre Project site within the General Manufacturing zone district (M-2). The proposed outpatient facility would include a 39,648 s.f. single-story building (net usable 30,100 s.f.), a covered drop-off area, bicycle racks, a covered ambulatory pick-up area, an outdoor physical therapy area, an outdoor dining area, and an elevated loading dock. The Project would include 214 parking stalls, including 184 standard stalls, 6 motorcycle stalls, 19 accessible standard stalls, and 5 accessible van stalls. Landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the Project site, around the building, and throughout the parking areas. In addition, a healing garden is proposed on the east side of the building, which would include a garden path and benches. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 3 2.0 AGRICULTURE IN CALIFORNIA 2.1 Williamson Act In 1965, the California Assembly established the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, in response to the increasing pressure occurring throughout California during the post-World War II period to convert agricultural lands to urban development. The Williamson Act allows local governments to enter contracts with landowners to restrict property to agricultural or related open space uses for a minimum of 10 years in exchange for a lower property tax assessment to the landowner. After the initial 10-year contract term, the contract remains in effect until canceled by the landowner or the local government. Once canceled, a contract winds down over a period of 10 years (CDC, 2019a). The Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract or agricultural preserve. (CDC, 2022) 2.2 Farmland Classification As part of the State’s efforts to protect agricultural resources, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to provide data to public, academia, and government entities for the purposes of making informed decisions regarding the use of California’s agricultural land resources. The FMMP is required by California Government Code § 65570 to report on the conversion of agricultural lands in the California Farmland Conversion Report and maintain the Important Farmland Maps database system to record changes in the use of agricultural lands over time (CDC, 2019b). • Prime Farmland: “Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.” • Farmland of Statewide Importance: “Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.” • Unique Farmland: “Farmland of less quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.” • Farmland of Local Importance: “Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committee.” • Grazing Land: “Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.” According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Important Farmland Finder Map (see Figure 2, Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program Map), the Project site is classified as “Vacant or Disturbed Land” and “Urban and Built-Up Land” (CDC, 2020). Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 5 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 3.1 LESA Model The LESA Model is a point-based approach that uses measurable factors to quantify the relative value of agricultural land resources and assist in the determination of the significance of agricultural land conversions. Many states have developed LESA Models specific to their local contexts. The California LESA Model was created as a result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993) and provides lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the environment associated with agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process (CDC, 1997, p. 4). The California LESA Model is the methodology used by the City of Bakersfield to determine whether important agricultural land resources are present on a property. 3.2 California LESA Model Scoring System The California LESA Model is made up of two components, known as “Land Evaluation” (LE) and “Site Assessment” (SA), that are scored and weighted separately to yield a total LE subscore and SA subscore. The Final LESA Score is the sum of the LE and SA subscores and has a maximum possible score of 100 points. Based on the Final LESA Score, numerical thresholds are used to determine the significance of a project’s impacts on agricultural resources (CDC, 1997, p. 31). 3.2.1 Land Evaluation (LE) The LE subscore consists of two factors, including the Land Capability Classification (LCC) rating and the Storie Index rating, which were devised to measure the inherent soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural production. The LCC Rating and Storie Index rating scores are based upon the soil map unit(s) identified on a property and the acreage of each soil mapping unit relative to the property’s total acreage. Data for the soil map unit(s), LCC, and Storie Index are obtained from soil survey data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (CDC, 1997, pp. 7-9). A. LCC Rating There are eight (8) classes of LCC (I through VIII). Soils designated “I” have the fewest limitations for agricultural production and soils designated “VIII” are least suitable for farmland. The LCC is further divided into subclasses (designated by lowercase letters e, w, s, or c) to describe limitations, including a soil’s susceptibility to erosion (“e”), limitations due to water in or on the soil (“w”), shallow or stony soils (“s”), or climate (“c”) (USDA, 2023). Once the LCC for each soil mapping unit is obtained from the USDA NRCS soil survey, the LCC classification is converted into a numeric score established by the California LESA Model. Table 3-1, Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, summarizes the LCC numeric conversion scores used by the LESA model. The LCC Score accounts for 25 percent of the total California LESA Model Score (CDC, 1997, p. 7). Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 6 Table 3-1 Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units LCC I IIe IIs, w IIIe IIIs, w IVe IVs, w V VI VII VIII Rating 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: (CDC, 1997) For properties with multiple soil mapping units, the LCC Score used in the LESA Model is determined by multiplying the LCC Rating for each map unit by the corresponding map unit’s proportion of the property’s total acreage. The LCC Score for each map unit is summed together for a total, single LCC Score for the property (CDC, 1997, p. 7). B. Storie Index Rating The Storie Index is a quantitative method of rating the agricultural capability of soils. The Storie Index has been used in California for over 50 years, with the most recent version of the Storie Index being published in 1978. The Storie Index is based on four factors: 1) degree of soil profile development; 2) surface texture; 3) slope; 4) other soil and landscape conditions including drainage, alkalinity, nutrient level, acidity, erosion, and microrelief. Soils are graded on a 100-point scale that represents the relative value of a given soil when used for intensive agricultural purposes (University of California, 1978, p. 1). The Storie Index Score accounts for 25 percent of the total California LESA Model Score (CDC, 1997, p. 12). For properties with multiple soil mapping units, the Storie Index Score is calculated by multiplying the Storie Index rating by the map unit’s proportion of the property’s total acreage. The Storie Index Score for each map unit is added together to provide a single Storie Index Score for the property (CDC, 1997, p. 12). 3.2.2 Site Assessment (SA) The SA subscore consists of four (4) factors that measure social, economic, and geographic features that contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. The SA factors include Project Size, Water Resource Availability, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Protected Resource Land (CDC, 1997, p. 13). A. Project Size The Project Size rating evaluates the potential viability of potential agricultural productivity on a property. Generally, high quality soils (high rate of economic return per acre planted) only need to be present in relatively small quantities on a property to be considered important, whereas lower quality soils (low or moderate rate of economic return per acre planted) need to be present in larger quantities to be considered important. The Project Size rating corresponds with the acreage of each LCC Class identified on a property. Table 3-2, Project Size Scoring, summarizes the different Project Size scoring combinations. For properties with multiple map units within the subject property, the mapping unit that generates the highest Project Size score is used as the final Project Size score for the Project site. The Project Size score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Model Score (CDC, 1997, pp. 13-15). Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 7 Table 3-2 Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 Fewer than 10 0 20-39 30 Fewer than 40 0 10-19 10 Fewer than 10 0 Source: (CDC, 1997) B. Water Resources Availability The Water Resources Availability rating measures the reliability of a property’s water resources that could be used for agricultural production during non-drought and drought years (water availability score) and the proportion of the property served by each water source (weighted availability score). The water availability score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-3, Water Resources Availability Scoring. The total Water Resources score is the sum of the weighted availability score(s). The Water Resources Availability score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Score (CDC, 1997, pp. 16, 29). Table 3-3 Water Resources Availability Scoring Non-Drought Years Drought Years SCORE Restrictions Restrictions Irrigation Feasible Physical Restrictions Economic Restrictions Irrigation Feasible Physical Restrictions Economic Restrictions YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 YES NO NO NO -- -- -- -- 50 YES NO YES NO -- -- -- -- 45 YES YES NO NO -- -- -- -- 35 YES YES YES NO -- -- -- -- 30 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in both drought and non-drought years 25 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 20 Neither irrigated nor dry land production feasible 0 Source: (CDC, 1997) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 8 C. Surrounding Agricultural Land The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating accounts for the potential effect of development on properties containing important agricultural resources that surround a project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is dependent on the amount of agricultural land or related open space within a project’s “Zone of Influence” (ZOI). The ZOI is determined by drawing the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the Project site on a map (Rectangle A) and creating a second rectangle that extends 0.25-mile beyond Rectangle A on all sides (Rectangle B). All parcels that are within or intersected by Rectangle B are included within the project’s ZOI (CDC, 1997, pp. 23-25). The ZOI for the Project site is illustrated on Figure 3, Zone of Influence. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is determined by the proportion of land within a project’s ZOI that is currently used for agricultural production. The Surrounding Agricultural Land score established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-4, Surrounding Agricultural Land Score. Data for surrounding agricultural land can be obtained from the Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources’ Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, and/or inspection of the site. The surrounding agricultural land score accounts for 15 percent of the total California LESA Model Score (CDC, 1997, pp. 26, 29). Table 3-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score Percent of Project’s ZOI in Agricultural Use Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90 – 100 percent 100 Points 80 – 89 90 75 – 79 80 70 – 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 40 - 44 10 <40 0 Source: (CDC, 1997) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 10 D. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Similar to the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating, the California LESA Model considers the potential effect of development on protected resource lands surrounding a project site. Protected resource lands include Williamson Act contracted lands, publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources, and lands with natural resource easements (e.g., agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space). The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is determined by the proportion of protected resource lands within a project’s ZOI. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land scoring system established by the California LESA Model is summarized in Table 3-5, Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land score accounts for 5 percent of the total California LESA Score (CDC, 1997, pp. 28-29). Table 3-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score Percent of Project’s ZOI Defined as Protected Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score (Points) 90 – 100 100 80 – 89 90 75 – 79 80 70 – 74 70 65 - 69 60 60 - 64 50 55 - 59 40 50 - 54 30 45 - 49 20 40 - 44 10 <40 0 Source: (CDC, 1997) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 11 4.0 PROJECT SITE EVALUATION In this section, the California LESA Model is applied to the Project site to evaluate whether the Project site contains important agricultural resources. 4.1 Land Evaluation (LE) As discussed in Subsection 3.2.1, the LE subscore measures the agricultural suitability of soils identified on a property by using the LCC Rating and Storie Index for each present soil map unit. The Project study area consists of one soil map, Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17 (174). 4.1.1 Land Capability Classification Refer to Table 4-1, Land Capability Classification Score, below, for the LCC Scores of the Project site. The Project site’s overall LCC Score is 10.0. Table 4-1 Land Capability Classification Score Soil Map Unit Acres Proportion of Project Site (percent) LCC LCC Rating LCC Score 174 9.0 100 VIIe 10 10 Totals 9.0 1001 10 Source: (USDA, 2023) 1Rounded to the nearest 10th. The non-irrigated LCC was utilized because under existing conditions, the Project site does not have an irrigation system. 4.1.1 Storie Index Refer to Table 4-2, Storie Index Score, below, for the total Storie Index scores for the Project site. The Project site’s overall Storie Index score is 88.0. Table 4-2 Storie Index Score Soil Map Unit Acres Proportion of Project Site (percent) Storie Index Storie Index Score 174 9.0 100 88 88 Totals 9.0 1001 88 Source: (USDA, 2023) 1Rounded to the nearest 10th. 4.2 Site Assessment (SA) As previously noted, the SA subscore is based on a combination of a property’s size, the availability of water resources, the presence/absence of surrounding agricultural lands, and the presence/absence of surrounding protected resource lands. 4.2.1 Project Size Refer to Table 4-3, Project Size Score, below, for the total Project Size scores for the Project site. The Project’s overall Project Size score is 0. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 12 Table 4-3 Project Size Score Soil Class LCC Class I-II LCC Class III LCC Class IV-VIII Acres of Project site 0 0 9.0 Project Size Scores 0 0 0 Source: (USDA, 2023) Refer to Table 3-2 for Project Size Scoring, which is based on LCC Class and acreage. 4.2.2 Water Resource Availability The Project site does not have existing irrigation systems; therefore, the California LESA model considers irrigated production to be infeasible on the Project site (CDC, 1997, p. 18). Notwithstanding, the LESA Model analyzes the potential for dryland production. The City of Calimesa is characterized as having an arid climate and receives little rainfall throughout the year. The average annual precipitation in the general Project site vicinity is approximately 7 inches (Best Places, 2023). Dryland farming can be productive with as little as 10-12 inches of rain per year (CAWSI, 2022). Accordingly, at the Project site, irrigated and dryland farming are considered infeasible, which corresponds to Water Resources Availability score of 0 (refer to Table 3-3). 4.2.3 Surrounding Agricultural Land The Surrounding Agricultural Land score is dependent on the presence or absence of active agricultural production land within a project’s ZOI. Figure 4, Surrounding Agricultural and Protected Resources Land, illustrates the active agricultural production lands in the ZOIs for the Project site. Table 4-4, Surrounding Agricultural Land Score, summarizes the Surrounding Agricultural Land score for the Project site; the Project site’s Surrounding Agricultural Land score is 0. Table 4-4 Surrounding Agricultural Land Score Zone of Influence Surrounding Agricultural Land Score Total Acres Acres of Surrounding Agricultural Land Percent Surrounding Agricultural Land 274.6 0 0.0 0 4.2.4 Surrounding Protected Resource Land The Surrounding Protected Resource Land score is dependent on the presence or absence of lands within a project’s ZOI that have long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses. Figure 4 illustrates the protected resource lands in the Project site’s ZOI. As illustrated on Figure 4, there are no protected resource lands within the Project site’s ZOI. Table 4-5, Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score, summarizes the Surrounding Protected Resource Land score for the Project site; the Project site’s Surrounding Protected Resource Land score is 0. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 14 Table 4-5 Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score Zone of Influence Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score Total Acres Acres of Protected Resource Land Percent Protected Resource Land 274.6 0 0.0 0 4.3 Total LESA Score The total LESA Score is calculated by summing the Project site’s LE and SA subscores. The Project site’s LESA subscores are summarized in Table 4-6. The Project site’s final LESA score is 24.5. Table 4-6 Total LESA Score Sheet – Project Site Factor Scores Factor Weight Weighted Factor Scores LE Factors LCC 10 0.25 2.5 Storie Index 88 0.25 22.0 LE Subtotal 24.5 SA Factors Project Size 0 0.15 0 Water Resource Availability 0 0.15 0 Surrounding Agricultural Land 0 0.15 0 Protected Resource Land 0 0.05 0 SA Subtotal 0 Final LESA Score 24.5 5.0 CONCLUSION The Project site received a LESA score of 24.5. As shown in Table 5-1, land that receives a LESA score between 0 and 39 are not considered significant agricultural land resources under CEQA. Thus, the Project site is determined to not have important agricultural land resources. Therefore, Project impacts on agricultural land resources and the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use would not be considered significant. Table 5-1 California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Considered Significant Source: (CDC, 1997, Table 9) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic City of Bakersfield Page 15 6.0 REFERENCES Cited As Reference Best Places, 2023 Best Places. 2023. Climate in Bakersfield, California. Available on-line at: https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/bakersfield CAWSI, 2022. California Ag Water Stewardship Initiative, 2022. Dry Farming. Available on-line at: http://agwaterstewards.org/practices/dry_farming/ CDC, 1997 California Department of Conservation, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual. 1997. CDC, 2019a California Department of Conservation, 2016. Land Conservation Williamson Act Program Overview. Available on-line at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa#:~:text=The%20Williamson%20Act%2C%20also%20known,or%20related%20open%20space%20use. CDC, 2019b California Department of Conservation, 2019. California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available on-line at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx CDC, 2020. California Department of Conservation, 2020. California Important Farmland Finder. Available on-line at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. CDC, 2022 California Department of Conservation, 2022. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available on-line at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ University of California, 1978 University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, 1978. Storie Index Soil Rating, Special Publication 3203. Available on-line at: https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/3203.pdf USDA, 2023 United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available on-line at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337 Attachment J: Additional Factual Background from Project Applicant 1 PROGRESS FOR BAKERSFIELD VETERANS LLC’S REPEATED USE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROTESTS AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS’ NEW COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Congress authorized a new Community Based Outpatient Clinic (“CBOC”) for Bakersfield, California, along with 14 other locations, in late 2009. Today, only the Bakersfield CBOC remains undelivered. The disappointed incumbent contractor in Bakersfield, Progress for Bakersfield Veterans LLC (“PBV”), has repeatedly used federal procurement protests and other litigation tactics to stop progress for Bakersfield veterans and the new, state-of-the-art CBOC they need and deserve. PBV has benefited from the stalled project because it continues to be compensated for operating the outdated CBOC in Bakersfield while it has used litigation to delay the new CBOC. Since 2018, PBV has filed 15 procurement protests against the Bakersfield CBOC project and VA’s award of the new CBOC lease to SASD Development Group LLC (“SASD”). For nearly five years, PBV has tried – but failed – to overturn VA’s award to SASD through nine bid protests to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), three bid protests to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and two appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). PBV also filed an unsuccessful challenge to SASD’s small business eligibility with the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”). Below is a chronology of PBV’s litany of unsuccessful protests against the new Bakersfield CBOC. September 28, 2018 VA notified PBV of its intent to award the Bakersfield CBOC lease to SASD. October 4, 2018 PBV protested to SBA challenging SASD’s small business eligibility for the procurement. October 22, 2018 PBV filed two protests to GAO challenging VA’s decisions to eliminate PBV’s two offers from consideration and to award the lease to SASD. October 31, 2018 SBA dismissed PBV’s October 4, 2018 protest because PBV was not an interested party to file the protest. SBA nevertheless decided to conduct a size determination on SASD, which is a detailed examination that required a significant volume of information from SASD and took several months. January 28, 2019 GAO dismissed PBV’s October 22, 2018 protest because VA’s signed lease with SASD did not contain a termination for convenience clause, meaning even if GAO sustained PBV’s protest the only relief it could provide to PBV was payment for its costs incurred in preparing its proposal and pursuing the protest. 2 February 12, 2019 SBA issued a size determination finding that SASD was an eligible small business for the procurement. February 14, 2019 VA directed SASD to resume work on the lease. Pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act, PBV’s October 22, 2018 protest to GAO had triggered an automatic suspension of performance on SASD’s lease during the pendency of the GAO protest. After GAO dismissed the protest on January 28, 2019, VA then waited for the conclusion of the SBA size determination before directing SASD to resume work. March 4, 2019 PBV filed a protest with the COFC challenging VA’s elimination of its offers from consideration and award of the lease to SASD. March 6, 2019 VA issued a stop work order to SASD based on the government’s decision to voluntarily suspend performance on SASD’s lease pending the conclusion of PBV’s March 4, 2019 protest. March 27, 2019 VA notified the COFC that it intended to take corrective action by agreeing to reinstate PBV’s offers to the competitive range, permitting PBV to submit revised offers, and reevaluating all offers. April 3, 2019 PBV opposed VA’s planned corrective action, asserting that VA should be required to terminate its lease with SASD. April 10, 2019 COFC sided with the government and granted its motion to dismiss PBV’s March 4, 2019 protest based on VA’s planned corrective action. June 7, 2019 VA notified the COFC that it intended to cancel the solicitation and issue a new solicitation for the Bakersfield CBOC. June 10, 2019 PBV filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the COFC’s dismissal of its March 4, 2019 protest. June 17, 2019 PBV protested to GAO challenging VA’s June 7, 2019 decision to cancel the solicitation and issue a new solicitation for the Bakersfield CBOC. July 19, 2019 GAO dismissed PBV’s June 17, 2019 protest because of PBV’s June 10, 2019 notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. GAO’s rules require dismissal of a protest that is the subject of litigation before the COFC or another court of competent jurisdiction. 3 May 1, 2020 After VA issued a new solicitation for the Bakersfield CBOC in December 2019, and PBV and SASD submitted new offers in January 2020, PBV protested to GAO challenging VA’s April 21, 2020 decision to eliminate all of PBV’s offers from the competition. May 18, 2020 PBV filed a supplemental protest with GAO. June 1, 2020 PBV filed a second supplemental protest with GAO. June 11, 2020 PBV filed a third supplemental protest with GAO. July 27, 2020 GAO dismissed PBV’s May and June 2020 protests based on VA’s decision to take corrective action by reevaluating offers. August 20, 2020 PBV filed a protest with the COFC challenging VA’s plan to take corrective action in response to PBV’s GAO protests. December 22, 2020 The COFC dismissed and denied PBV’s August 20, 2020 protest. April 26, 2021 VA again awarded the Bakersfield CBOC lease to SASD. May 6, 2021 PBV protested to GAO challenging VA’s award of the lease to SASD. May 24, 2021 PBV filed a supplemental protest with GAO. August 11, 2021 GAO dismissed and denied PBV’s May 2021 protests. November 8, 2021 PBV effectively appealed GAO’s August 11, 2021 decision by filing a protest with the COFC challenging VA’s award to SASD. PBV also challenged VA’s elimination of PBV’s offers from the competition even though the COFC had already considered and rejected those arguments in its December 22, 2020 decision that denied and dismissed PBV’s August 20, 2020 protest. March 11, 2022 The COFC dismissed and denied PBV’s November 8, 2021 protest. May 10, 2022 PBV filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging one aspect of the COFC’s March 11, 2022 ruling. May 4, 2023 Three days after holding oral arguments, the Federal Circuit summarily denied PBV’s appeal and affirmed the COFC’s March 11, 2022 decision.