HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPR 21-0399 File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 1
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: October 16, 2023 AGENDA: 6.a
TO: Chair Bashirtash and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Johnson, Planning Director
DATE: October 12, 2023
WARD: 4
FILE: SPR 21-0399 (SCH #2022080337)
STAFF PLANNER: Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II
REQUEST: Appeal for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
SASD Dev Group, LLC Lundy Family Trust Carosella Trust
4895 Pacific Highway 6607 Mt. Whitney Drive 8501 Pacheco Road #100
San Diego, CA 92110 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Bakersfield, CA 93311
PROJECT LOCATION: 5512 Knudsen Drive
APN: 565-020-28 and 565-020-30
PROJECT SIZE: ±10.05 gross acres CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SI (Service Industrial)
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: M-2 (General Manufacturing)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution DENYING the
appeal and upholding the Development Service Director’s decision to approve Site Plan Review No. 21-
0399 as depicted in the project description and subject to the listed mitigation measures and conditions
of approval.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site consists of two undeveloped parcels of land which are bounded
to the north, east and west by property within Kern County jurisdiction. Surrounding properties are
primarily developed as: north – commercial land; east – undeveloped land; south – self storage and
commercial land; and west – Kern County Fire Department Training Facilities.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 2
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• July 28, 2012 - City Council approved the annexation of the project site into the City of Bakersfield as
part of Annexation No. 635 (Landco No. 2; Resolution No. 93-11).
• January 7, 2021 - City Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
environmental compliance for Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to allow construction of a U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic on the project site (Resolution
No. 03-21).
• January 8, 2021 - Development Services Director approved Site Plan Review No. 20-0102.
• January 15, 2021 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Hagan Law Group, LLP
appealed adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to City Council and appealed approval of
Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to the City Planning Commission.
• February 4, 2021 - City Planning Commission heard and denied the appeal and upheld the decision of
the Development Services Director approving Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 (Resolution No. 09-21).
• February 12, 2021 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Hagan Law Group, LLP
appealed the City Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to City Council.
• March 3, 2021 - City Council heard and denied both appeals and upheld the decisions of the Planning
Commission by adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 029-2021) and approving
Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 (Resolution No. 030-2021).
• April 12, 2021 - California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit served on the City alleging:
o Project will have significant adverse effects on the environment;
o Onsite contamination requires testing the soil and groundwater;
o Failure to comply with land use requirements, including City’s General Plan and Zone Change since
the current zoning is inconsistent for the project;
o Impacts on biological resources, transportation, air quality, tribal cultural resources and
geology/soils, energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, hazard and hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic, utility services systems; and
o Abuse of discretion in approving the Site Plan Review based on inaccurate Project description.
Petitioner: Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Channel Law Group, LLP; Hagan-
Denison, LLP; and Soluri Meserve, a Law Corporation (Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-21-
100778).
• July 14, 2021 - As a result of the lawsuit, the project applicant (SASD Development Group, LLC),
represented by their attorneys (Rutan & Tucker; and Klein DeNatale Goldner) requested City Council
rescind Resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102.
• September 1, 2021 - City Council rescinded the Resolutions (Resolution No. 172-2021).
• September 17, 2021 - SASD Development Group, LLC and Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC signed
a confidential settlement agreement. The City was not involved in settlement, nor did City pay out
any money.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 3
• September 28, 2021 - Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
• October 19, 2021 - SASD Development Group, LLC submitted Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 for
construction of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic located on
the project site.
• September 7, 2023 - City Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 (Resolution No. 71-
23).
• September 8, 2023 - Development Service Director approved Site Plan Review No. 21-0399.
• September 15, 2023 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Channel Law Group, LLP
appealed certification of the Environmental Impact Report to City Council and appealed approval of
Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 to the City Planning Commission.
• October 5, 2023 - The appeal of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 was scheduled to be considered by the
City Planning Commission on this date. After distribution of the staff report, Channel Law Group, LLP
submitted a letter stating they did not receive the public hearing notice at least 10 days prior to the
hearing. Staff recognized the comment and therefore the Commission opened and continued
consideration of the appeal to a special Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2023, in order
for the public hearing to be re-noticed.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Project Description. Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 (Project) was submitted for a proposed U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) located at 5512 Knudsen
Drive. The CBOC is designed to have a gross building floor area of up to 39,648 square feet with a net
usable area of 30,100 square feet. The building floor plan will be separated into primary and specialty care
clinic areas that 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 user of the building will be the Veterans Heath Administration.
Site Development. The proposed building is rectangular in shape and will be positioned diagonally on the
site with the long sides of the building facing east and west and the shorter sides facing north and south.
The building will have a maximum height of 31 feet to the top of the sloped roof. The building is designed
in a contemporary style and will be painted shades of gray, white, and blue. The main entrance and patient
drop-off area will be in the northwest corner of the building, facing the main parking area. Sloped roofs
and glass curtain wall will be featured at the main entrance.
A mix of shade trees, palm trees, small evergreen trees, screen trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be
planted along the perimeter of the Project site. Shade trees, accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover will
also be planted in the parking areas. Landscaping, featuring shade trees, small evergreen trees, accent
trees, shrubs, perennials, groundcover, and irrigated turf, will also occur at the entries and around the
perimeter of the building. A healing garden is proposed on the northeast side of the building which will
include garden paths, benches, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf.
Access/Parking. Vehicular access to the Project site will be provided by a main public entrance on Knudsen
Drive with a secondary public entrance on Landco Drive. A staff entrance and service entrance will be on
Landco Drive and Street “A” Street. The Project site will also include street improvements and the
installation of site-adjacent Americans with Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks and ramps for the street
frontages on the east - Landco Drive, south - Street “A”, and west - Knudsen Drive. The site design includes
214 parking stalls, including 184 standard stalls, 6 motorcycle stalls, 19 accessible-standard stalls, and 5
accessible-van stalls.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 4
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Site Plan Approval Required. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.060, no person shall
construct any improvements on land which require a building permit without first obtaining site plan
approval.
Site Plan Approval Process. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080 the application for
site plan approval is reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee (Committee) which is established and
consists of the Planning Director, Building Director, Fire Chief, and Public Works Director, or their
designated representatives. The site plans are reviewed by the following City Departments:
• Development Services Department/Building Division
• Development Services Department/Planning Division
• Fire Department
• Water Resources
• Public Works Department/Engineering Division
• Public Works Department/Traffic Division
• Public Works Department/Solid Waste Division
• Recreation and Parks Department (as needed)
• Bakersfield Police Department (as needed)
The Committee reviews and provides comments to the Planning Director who, in-turn, shall conduct an
environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) implementation
guidelines and state law to determine if a project is subject to CEQA. Staff notes the Committee completed
its review of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 and as proposed, complies with City development standards.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in compliance with CEQA and certified by the City
Planning Commission on September 7, 2023 (see Attachments B through F).
After considering the recommendations from the Committee and the Planning Director, and after
approving any CEQA documents, the Development Services Director may approve, conditionally approve,
or deny the site plan. Staff notes Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 was approved by the Development Services
Director on September 8, 2023, and a Notice of Decision filed with the City Clerk and State Clearinghouse
(see Attachments G and H).
APPEAL
Environmental Impact Report Appeal Procedure. Pursuant to the City of Bakersfield California
Environmental Quality Act Implementation Procedures Section VI, within ten days after certification of an
EIR, any individual may appeal that decision. The appeal must be in writing to the City Clerk accompanied
with the appropriate filing fee as required by the City.
Site Plan Review Appeal Procedure. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, any
person not satisfied with the decision of the Development Services Director may, within ten days of the
date of that decision, appeal to the City Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal and
payment of fees with the Planning Director setting forth the precise basis and issues on appeal and
requesting a hearing thereon. Only appeals of issues subject to review by the Planning Commission will
be accepted for filing.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 5
Appeals Filed. On September 15, 2023, Progress for Bakersfield Veterans LLC (PBV), represented by
Channel Law Group, LLP filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and the
Development Services Director’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399. Staff notes the EIR appeal will
be considered by the City Council while the Site Plan Review appeal is considered by the City Planning
Commission (see Attachments I and J).
Basis for Site Plan Review Appeal. PBV states that approval of the Site Plan Review has resulted in a
misapplication of the City's zoning regulations and development standards, as well as the requirements
of CEQA.
Issues for Consideration on Site Plan Review Appeal. According to the appeal letter, the issues PBV
intends to address on appeal include, but are not limited to, the following. Each is followed by staff’s
response.
Appeal Issue No. 1
Comment - The SPR Application was incomplete and misleading.
Response - The appellant failed to provide a precise basis for their assertion that the Site Plan Review
(SPR) application was incomplete or misleading. However, it is noteworthy that the Planning Division
received a fully compliant SPR application, adhering to the prerequisites of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code.
Appeal Issue No. 2
Comment - The SPR was conducted based on an inadequate Project description and incorrectly concludes
that the Project is a permitted use under the City’s M-2 Zoning Ordinance.
Response - The appellant's assertion that the SPR was based on an inadequate Project description lacks
specificity. Nevertheless, it is imperative to underscore that the Committee conducted a thorough review
of a complete SPR application with a stable project description. Furthermore, the Project description
complied with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, which states that the description of the project shall
contain certain information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and
review of the environmental impact.
The appellant's assertion regarding the Project's compatibility with the M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone
is similarly lacking specific substantiation. However, the appellant does correctly identify the Project site's
location within the M-2 zone. It is important to recognize that, due to the City's utilization of the pyramid
or Euclid zoning system, permissible uses within the C-O (Professional and Administrative Office), C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (Regional Commercial), and M-1 (Light Industrial) zones are
automatically considered as permissible uses within the M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone. In accordance
with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.20.020, permissible uses in the C-O zone encompass a range
of activities, notably including "Medical, dental, psychiatric, and other health practitioner offices and
clinics, including chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, and blood banks," along with "Pharmacies,
in conjunction with medical clinics." Consequently, it is a well-founded determination that outpatient
clinics such as the proposed CBOC are indeed permissible within the M-2 zone.
It is also worth recognizing that multiple medical clinics are presently situated within both commercial
and industrial zones throughout Bakersfield. This is further exemplified by the existing VA CBOC located
at 1801 Westwind Drive in the C-2 zone.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 6
Appeal Issue No. 3
Comment - The Project description fails to disclose that the clinic will treat patients with contagious
diseases, as well as those suffering from drug and/or alcohol addiction, which changes the land use
compatibility analysis; such a use requires a conditional use permit (CUP) in a M-2 zone.
Response - The appellant appears to be referring to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.28.030, which
requires a conditional use permit in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone for "Clinics, hospitals, sanitariums, or
other buildings for contagious, mental, drug, or alcohol addiction cases." These types of provisions were
designed to encompass in-patient facilities offering long-term and overnight accommodations for
treatment. In contrast, the proposed Project exclusively entails an outpatient clinic, without any overnight
services. Therefore, the prerequisite for a conditional use permit is not applicable in this context. It should
be noted that any future alterations to the project description that necessitate additional permitting, such
as a conditional use permit, will be communicated to the applicant to ensure the operation remains in
compliance with the Municipal Code.
It is also worth highlighting that the requirement for a conditional use permit to allow "Clinics, hospitals,
sanitariums, or other buildings for contagious, mental, drug, or alcohol addiction cases" within the M-1
zone was introduced into the Bakersfield Municipal Code in 1982 (Ordinance No. 2707). Most notably, the
existing VA CBOC at 1801 Westwind Drive received approval in 1991 within the M-1 zone; later changed
to its current C-2 zoning. During that time, a conditional use permit was not required, and the project
underwent review via Site Plan Review No. 18-91-B. Additionally, the project was determined to be
exempt from CEQA, so no environmental document was prepared. Therefore, it was the determination
of the staff at that time, and continues to be, that the proposed VA CBOC does not necessitate a
conditional use permit within the M-1 or M-2 zones.
Appeal Issue No. 4
Comment - There are a number of Project conditions contained in the SPR Conditions that should have
been incorporated into the EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) as mitigation
measures; the EIR appears to relying (sic) on these conditions to mitigate certain impacts (that have not
been sufficiently analyzed) to less than significant level.
Response - The appellant does not specify the particular conditions they believe should be incorporated
as mitigation measures, nor do they identify which impacts they contend have not been subjected to
sufficient analysis. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that the City Planning Commission diligently
certified the EIR on September 7, 2023, concurrent with the adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Consideration, all of which were
completed in strict adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Furthermore, all potential environmental impacts were mitigated to a "less-than-significant" degree with
the singular exception being greenhouse gas emissions. In alignment with CEQA guidelines, the City
Planning Commission judiciously evaluated and determined that the project's benefits, primarily based
on social, economic, and environmental advantages, outweighed the significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impact stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Appeal Issue No. 5
Comment - The decision to approve the SPR was based on a legally deficient EIR, and must be overturned.
The environmental review process must be re-initiated to evaluate the Project based on a complete and
accurate Project description and the full range of potentially significant impacts that would result from
the Project and to account for the requirement to obtain a CUP.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 7
Response - The appellant's argument lacks specificity on how the Project description makes the EIR legally
deficient. To reiterate what is stated above, City staff rigorously assessed the Project description per the
requirements of the City's Municipal Code, as well as its adherence to the standards outlined in CEQA.
Additionally, the City Planning Commission meticulously fulfilled all mandatory environmental review
prerequisites, culminating in their decision to certify the EIR for the project. This certification reaffirms
that the EIR has undergone a comprehensive analysis and has been deemed legally compliant with
applicable regulations and standards.
Summary of Appeal Issues. According to the appeal letter, the aforementioned issues raised by PBV were
not all inclusive. However, the Municipal Code requires the appeal set forth the precise basis and issues.
As such, no further response can be provided without a specific issue being raised. Therefore, based on
the analysis completed and information available, staff believes the record stands for itself and no
additional analysis is warranted.
Planning Commission Authority. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, review by
the Planning Commission of an appealed site plan is limited to a determination of whether or not an
adopted development standard, zoning regulation, or policy applied or not applied to the project was
done consistent with authority granted by City ordinance. No authority is granted to add, delete, change,
or modify adopted standards, regulations, or policies except as required to comply with conditions
necessary to mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts.
After hearing the appeal, the Planning Commission may deny, grant, or partially grant the appeal by
directing changes to the project or to the CEQA document adopted or to the mitigation measures as
necessitated by their findings regarding the issues appealed. All findings, CEQA determinations, and
conditions made by the Development Services Director not appealed to the Planning Commission shall
remain in full force and effect and shall not be modified by the Planning Commission.
The decision by the Planning Commission shall be final. However, any person not satisfied with the
decision of the Planning Commission may, within ten days of the date of that decision, appeal to the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency
and determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was appropriate for the project
to adequately analyze the potential impacts of the Project to the existing environment. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, a Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared. Following the required public circulation, the
Planning Commission certified the EIR on September 7, 2023.
PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 5, 2023:
As previously noted, the appeal of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 was scheduled to be considered by the
City Planning Commission on October 5, 2023. After distribution of the staff report (see Attachment K),
correspondence was received from (1) Channel Law Group, LLP - representing the appellant Progress for
Bakersfield Veterans, LLC; (2) Rutan and Tucker, LLP - representing the project applicant SASD
Development Group; and (3) Pacific Gas & Electric. A memorandum was prepared transmitting the
comments and providing a response to each (see Attachment L).
File SPR No. 21‐0399 Page 8
Based on Channel Law Group, LLP’s comment stating they did not receive the public hearing notice at
least 10 days prior to the hearing, staff revised the recommendation and requested the Site Plan Review
Appeal Hearing be opened and continued to a special Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2023
at 5:30PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA. It was noted in the
memorandum that City staff would re‐notice the Site Plan Review Appeal Hearing and ensure all
interested parties have received timely notification. A motion was made based on staff’s revised
recommendation and unanimously approved by a vote of 4 to 0 with 2 Commissioners absent and 1
Commissioner seat vacant.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield for the appeal was
advertised in the newspaper and posted on the bulletin board of the Bakersfield City Development
Services Department. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified about the
hearing at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with State law.
The comments received as of this writing are provided in the memorandum for the October 5, 2023
meeting (see Attachment L). One additional comment was received from Pacific Gas and Electric Company
who stated that if their gas or electrical service is required in the future, to continue working with their
Service Planning department
CONCLUSION:
Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, the appellant has failed to set forth the precise
basis and issues on appeal to demonstrate that the Project is contrary to the adopted ordinances,
standards, and policies of the City concerning development of the site. The Site Plan Review Committee
has reviewed the Project and conditioned accordingly to ensure compliance with City development
standards. State agencies have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and there are no comments
on its inadequacy. Additionally, the applicant demonstrated to the Development Services Director that
the Project complies with City requirements in both design and density in accordance with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends your Commission deny the appeal and uphold
the decision of the Development Services Director to approve Site Plan Review No. 21‐0399.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map Set
Aerial
Zone Classification
General Plan Designation
B. PC Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
C. Draft EIR
D. Final EIR
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
F. CEQA Section 15091 Findings of Fact and Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
G. DS Director Site Plan Review (SPR) Approval
H. Notice of Determination
I. Appeal of SPR Approval
J. Appeal of EIR Certification
K. PC Staff Report for 10/5/2023
L. PC Memorandum for 10/5/2023
M. Public Comments
N. PC Draft Resolution
SARDINIA DRBERGAMODRVIA MARISOL ST
STATE RD
WILSON
AVE
LUCCA
CT
BROOKDALEAVE
CHERRY
GLENCT
PEMBROKE
AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
VIA FONTENELLE DRSARBONNE DR
VARESE
CT ELTEJONAVEVICTOR STARTHUR AVESHELDON DRPEMBROKE AVETALLMANAVE CASTAICAVEWOODROW AVE
MORAGA CT BRANDONWAYRU THERFORDCTLANDCO DRO LIVE TREE CT
CARTER AVE
SANDALWOOD STROSCOMAREST
VENETO ST
BASILICATA DR
EMILIADRPRYOR STAREZZOCT
S
T
A
T
E
R
D
BENEVENTO CTSICILY CT
ATLAS CT
LOMBARDY CT LOGAN STNOMI STHANK RD
LANDCO DRR
O
B
ERTSL
NKNUDSENDR
KNUDSEN DRST
A
T
E
RDVICTOR STOLIVE DR OLIVEDRMOHAWK STHAGEMAN RD 99SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE
BEARDSLEYCANA
L
D
I
T
C
H
B
E
AR
D
SLEYCANAL
San Lauren
Elementary
School
CITY LIMIT CITY LIMITCITY LIMIT
Copyright nearmap 2015
Document Name: 2020_11_10zc
0 300 600
Feet
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
AERIAL
SPR 21-0399
Project Location
SPR 21-0399
C-2EE
EER-SM-1
C-2E-.5AC-2A
M-2
E
E
R-SR-SR-SR-SR-SR-1E-.5A
R-
E
M-2C-2C-2AM-3
COLUMBINE ST
SARDINIA DRBERGAMODRVIA MARISOL ST
STATERD
WILSON
AVE
LUCCA
CT
BROOKDALEAVE
CHERRY
GLENCT
PEMBROKE
AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
VIA FONTENELLE DRSARBONNE DR
VARESE
CT ELTEJONAVEVICTOR STARTHUR AVESHELDON DRPEMBROKE AVETALLMAN CASTAICAVEWOODROW AVE
MORAGA CT BRANDONWAYRU THERFORDCTLANDCO DRO LIVE TREE CT
CARTER AVE
SANDALWOOD STROSCOMAREST
VENETO ST
BASILICATA DR
EMILIADRPRYOR STAREZZOCT
S
T
A
T
E
R
D
BENEVENTO CTSICILY CT
ATLAS CT
LOMBARDY CT LOGAN STNOMI STHANK RD
LANDCO DRR
O
B
ERTSL
NKNUDSENDR
KNUDSEN DRST
A
T
E
RD
VICTORSTOLIVE DR OLIVEDRMOHAWK STHAGEMAN RD 99SPHEREOFINFLUENCE
BEARDSLEYC
A
N
A
LDITCH
B
E
AR
D
SLEYCANAL
CITY LIMIT CITY LIMITCITY LIMIT
R-1
R-1
M-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
C-2/P.C.D.
R-1
M-2
M-2 M-3 M-3 M-3
Document Name: 2020_11_10zc
0 300 600
Feet
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2 Commercial
C-2/P.C.D. Combining
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
Resource Zone Designations
A Agricultural
Residential Zone Designations
E Estate One Family Dwelling
E-.5A Estate One FamilyDwelling - .5 acre minimum
R-S Residential Suburban
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-3 Limited Multiple FamilyDwelling Zone - 1 unit/1,250sq. ft.
Project Location
SPR 21-0399
SPR 21-0399
COLUMBINE
ST
SARDINIA DRBERGAMODRVIA MARISOL ST
STATE RD
WILSON
AVE
LUCCA
CT
BROOKDALEAVE
CHERRY
GLEN
CT
PEMBROKE
AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
VIA FONTENELLE DRSARBONNE DR
VARESE
CT ELTEJONAVEVICTOR STARTHUR AVESHELDON DRPEMBROKE AVETALLMANAVE CASTAICAVEWOODROW AVE
MORAGA CT BRANDONWAYRU THERFORDCTLANDCO DRO LIVE TREE CT
CARTER AVE
SANDALWOOD STROSCOMAREST
VENETO ST
BASILICATA DR
EMILIADRPRYOR STAREZZOCT
S
T
A
T
E
R
D
BENEVENTO CTSICILY CT
ATLAS CT
LOMBARDY CT LOGAN STNOMI STHANK RD
LANDCO DRR
O
B
ERTSL
NKNUDSENDR
KNUDSEN DRST
A
T
E
RDVICTOR STOLIVE DR OLIVEDRMOHAWK STHAGEMAN RD 99SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE
BEARDSLEYCANALDITCH
B
E
AR
D
SLEYCANAL
GC
SISISI
SI
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
SR
LMR
GC
LI
LMR
LMR
LMR
LMR
LMR
PLMR
SRSR
PS
LR
LR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SRSR
SR
SR
SR
GC
SI
LMR
LMR
SI
LR
LR
GC
LMR
LMR
LR
LR
GC
SR
LMR
LMR
SI
P
GC
SI
HC HC
HI HISI
CITY LIMIT CITY LIMITCITY LIMIT
Document Name: 2020_11_10zc
0 300 600
Feet
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
SR -Suburban Residential:
≤ 4 dwelling units/net
acre
LMR - Low Medium DensityResidential: > 4 units but
≤ 10 dwelling units/net
acre
HMR - High MediumDensity Residential: >
7.26 units but ≤ 17.42
dwelling units/net acre
LR - Low DensityResidential: ≤ 7.26dwelling units/net acre
COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
HC - Highway Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
SI - Service Industrial
HI - Heavy Industrial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
P - Public Facilities
PS - Public/Private Schools
SPR 21-0399
Project Location
SPR 21-0399
f ' ./
.RESOLUTION NO. 71-,23
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION TO
CERTIFY AN-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPT :SECTION
15091 FINDINGS AND SECTION 15093 STATEMENT .OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERTIONS; AND. ADOPT MITIGATION· MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, FOR A SITE PLAN ·REVIEW FOR A MEDICAL
OUTPATIENT FACJLITY ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES IN AN M-2
(GENEftAL MANUFACTURING) ZONE, LOCATED AT 5512 KNUDSEN
DRIVE (SPR NO.21-0399).
WHEREAS, SASD Development Group [LLG) is requesting a.Site Plari Review qf an
approximately 39,650 sqvare foot medical outpatient facility on approximately 10 acres
in an M~2 [General Manufacturing) zone-district, located at the 5512 Knudsen Drive (the
"Projectll):; a_nq
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined the Project would
have a significant effect on the environment: th.t;3rE?fore, on E;nviro.nmenta/ Impact Report
was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Qualify.Act (CEQA.); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental !mpact Report was circulated for a public
review period from May 5, "2023 to June 2_0, 2023 in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary qf the Planning Commission set Thursday, September 7,
2023 at S:30 p.m. in the Council Chdmbers-.of City Hall, l.501 Truxtun Av~nue, Bakersfield,
California; as the tirne and place ford public hearing before the Planning Commission to
consider the propbsed Environmental !mpdct Report as required by the City of B.akersfiefd
Califbrnio·Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Implementation Procedure as of (Resolution
145~2021); ahd
WHEREAS,. during ·+he heating, the Plannin_g Cprrimission considered all. facts,
testimony, .ond evidence; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations. relating to the preparation and certification of
an Environmental Impact Report as set forth ih CEQA, the State CEQA Guldelines, and
the City Of Bakersfie!cl CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by
City-staff; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the Lead Agency
(City of Bak.ersfiek:1) .shalf certify that: ·
1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead
Agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the
information ·contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
3. The final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and
analysis; dnd
Pagel of ·3
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Service Department (1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the Custodian of all documents and other material upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental document and
special studies, and evidence received in writing support the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding
the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project
area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of
general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff
determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study
was completed. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
properly noticed for public review.
3. An Environmental Impact Report for the Project is appropriate
environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance
with CEQA, the Lead Agency prepared an Environmental Impact Report, and mitigation measures were identified and have been incorporated
into Projects.
4. Based on the analysis presented in the Environmental Impact Report, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. WHEREAS, the “Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program,” attached as Exhibit “A,” is incorporated into the Project; and
WHEREAS, THE “Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation
Measures,” and the “Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations”, attached
as Exhibit “B” are appropriate and incorporated into the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as
follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Environmental Impact Report is hereby certified by the Planning
Commission.
3. The Project is subject to mitigation, monitoring and reporting program
found in Exhibit A for the Project which is incorporated herein.
4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration pertaining to significant and
unavoidable adverse impact related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions is hereby adopted.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
September 7, 2023, on a motion by Commissioner Neal and seconded by Commissioner
Kaur, by the following vote:
A YES: Bashirtash, Cater, Bittle, Kaur, Koman, Neal
NOES: None
Exhibits (attached):
ZAC
City
Exhibit A: Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit B: Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures
Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C: Location Map
LR:PJ
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 21-0399
(SCH #2022080337)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 1
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
4.1 Aesthetics
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Project site does not
comprise all or part of a scenic vista and
does not contain any visually prominent
scenic features. No unique views to scenic
vistas are visible from the property. The
Project would not substantially change a
scenic view or substantially block or
obscure a scenic vista; therefore, impacts to
scenic vistas would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
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
Aesthetics, which include the following:
AES DF-1: Prior to the approval of building
permits and other permits and approvals that
authorize construction, the City of Bakersfield shall
review the construction documents and plans to
assure the following:
a. All lighting fixtures shall comply with
applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code
requirements pertaining to lighting and
illumination of buildings, parking areas, and
signs.
b. All landscaping shall be installed to comply
with all applicable City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code standards pertaining to
perimeter landscaping and minimum shade
cover.
City of Bakersfield
City of Bakersfield
Prior to approval of
building permits.
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: The Project site is not located
within the viewshed of a scenic highway
and, therefore, the Project site does not
contain any scenic resources visible from a
scenic highway.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold c: The Project site is located
within an urbanized area and would not
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality during
construction or operation.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 2
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold d: Project-related development
would not create substantial light or glare.
Compliance with Bakersfield Municipal
Code requirements for lighting would
ensure less than significant impacts
associated with light and glare affecting day
or nighttime views in the area from on-site
lighting elements.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.2 Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Project emissions would not
exceed SJVAPCD thresholds for criteria
pollutants, and as such the Project would be
consistent with the AQMP.
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 Air
Quality, which include the following:
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.
City of Bakersfield
City of Bakersfield
Prior to construction.
Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 3
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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.
Threshold b: Project emissions would not
exceed any of the SJVAPCD significance
thresholds.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: The Project would not result
in air quality emissions that would result in
carcinogenic risk or non-cancer risk
exceeding the identified thresholds of
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
-
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 4
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
significance of one in 20 million and 1.0,
respectively, and Project cancer and non-
cancer risks would therefore be less than
significant. The Project also would result in
less than significant impacts due to
visibility to nearby areas.
Threshold d: The Project is not considered
a source of objectionable odors or odorous
compounds.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.3 Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Project contains suitable
habitat for Crotch bumble bee, burrowing
owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF), and
American badger. In the event that any of
these species are present on the Project site
at the time Project construction activities
commence, implementation of the Project
would have the potential to significantly
impact the species. The Project also has the
potential to impact nesting migratory birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and the CDFW.
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 31September 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
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
30 days prior to ground
disturbance
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 5
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
31September 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 clearly
demarcated in the field with highly visible
construction fencing or flagging, and 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.
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
Prior to ground disturbance
if such disturbance will
occur between February 1
and August 31
BIO MM-3: Prior to vegetation clearing or initial
ground-disturbing construction activities, a
professional biologist shall conduct a survey to
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
Prior to ground disturbing
activities
I I I I I I I
-
-
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 6
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 7
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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 current
biological information in order to implement all
avoidance and minimization measures that are
required based on any previous observations of
special-status species and to update observations
shall any new site occupation by special-status
species occur. If any known San Joaquin kit fox dens
are detected, implementation of the most recent
USFWS protocols (Standardized Recommendations
for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit
Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011))
is required per BIO MM-5 unless protocols are issued
by either CDFW or USFWS that supersede these
protocols. If American badger is present, BIO MM-5
shall apply.
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
30 days prior to ground
disturbance
BIO MM-5: 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. Should either
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If threatened or endangered
species are found
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 8
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
agency determine that incidental take authorization is
required prior to construction, the appropriate
CESA/FESA authorization shall be obtained by the
Project Applicant. CESA and FESA authorizations
shall include measures addressing the respective state
and/or federal listed species and shall include the
following at a minimum:
a) Implementation of standardized biological
resource protective measures included in BIO
MM-4;
b) Biological preconstruction surveys conducted
by qualified biologists approved by each
applicable agency no more than 30 days prior to
conducting work on the Project site;
c) If any known San Joaquin kit fox dens are
detected, implementation of the most recent
USFWS protocols (Standardized
Recommendations for Protection of the
Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or
During Ground Disturbance (2011)) unless
protocols are issued by either CDFW or
USFWS that supersede these protocols.
d) Destruction of San Joaquin kit fox dens shall
follow the monitoring and excavation
procedures in USFWS (2011).
e) If CBB individuals or nests are detected during
any surveys conducted per BIO MM-3, and the
CBB remains a state candidate species or is
listed under CESA, the Project Applicant shall
obtain take authorization from CDFW prior to
vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance.
A CBB Mortality Reduction Plan shall be
submitted for CDFW approval no less than 30
days prior to initial vegetation removal or
ground disturbance and the Plan shall contain
the following information at a minimum:
o Active CBB nests shall be avoided by 50
feet. If CBB nests cannot be avoided, the
Plan shall include seasonal restrictions for
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 9
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
disturbance within 50 feet of any nest and
procedures for determining when nest
impacts will be minimized.
o Vegetation removal/initial ground
disturbance shall be limited to the period
when impacts to individual CBB that may
be underground will be minimized (e.g.,
after nests have become inactive).
o Prior to vegetation removal/initial ground
disturbance, small mammal burrows that
may harbor overwintering CBB queens
shall be excavated by hand. The Plan shall
include timing and excavation methods. In
addition, the Plan shall include procedures
for handling and disposition of CBB if
encountered during burrow excavations.
o The Plan shall include procedures for
handling and disposition of individual
CBB if they are encountered in the work
limits or on construction equipment
during construction activities.
f) Biological monitoring of initial ground
disturbance during each phase of grading;
g) Provision for compliance reporting to be
provided to each agency as required in respective
take authorizations;
h) Compensation for habitat disturbance acceptable
to CDFW (state listed species) and/or USFWS
(federal listed species) at a ratio of no less than
3:1 for permanent impacts and 1.1:1 for
temporary impacts to listed species habitat. The
only existing approved conservation bank for
impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat in Kern
County is the Kern Water Bank Authority
Conservation Bank. Lands used to mitigate for
San Joaquin kit fox must be contiguous with
other potentially occupied lands, provide
suitable foraging and denning habitat for San
Joaquin kit fox, and be located in the southern
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 10
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County
below 1,500’ in elevation;
i) Compensation land shall be funded for
maintenance, protection, and management
through establishment of a long-term funding
mechanism such as an endowment. The
endowment must be a non-wasting account that
is acceptable to both CDFW and USFWS.
BIO MM-6: All biological monitors working on the
Project site shall be required by their contract to
notify the USFWS and CDFW of the discovery of
any protected species identified on the site other that
nesting birds, Crotch bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox
and American badger which are addressed by BIO
MM-1, BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3, BIO MM-4, and
BIO MM-5. Any take of protected wildlife shall be
reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If threatened or endangered
species are found
BIO MM-7: The Project Applicant shall ensure that
the Project’s construction contractors adhere to the
following best management practices. Construction
contractors shall be required by their contracts to
comply with these best practices and permit periodic
inspection of the construction site by City of
Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm
compliance. A note that requires compliance is
required on all grading and building plans approved
by the City of Bakersfield.
a. Traffic restraints and signs shall be established
to minimize temporary disturbances during
construction beyond the construction site
boundaries. All construction traffic shall be
restricted to designated access roads and routes,
Project site, storage areas, and staging and
parking areas. Off-road traffic outside
designated Project boundaries shall be
prohibited. A 15 mile-per-hour (24 kilometer-
Professional Biologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
During construction
activities
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 11
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
per-hour) speed limit shall be observed in all
Project construction areas, except as otherwise
posted on county roads and state and federal
highways.
b. All construction personnel involved in ground-
disturbing construction activities shall attend a
worker orientation program. The worker
orientation program shall present measures
required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
impacts to biological resources and shall
include, at a minimum, the following subjects:
A summary of the Federal Endangered Species
Act (FESA), California Endangered Species
Act (CESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA); biological survey results for the
current construction area; life history
information for the species of concern;
biological resource avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation requirements; consequences for
failure to successfully implement requirements;
and procedures to be followed if dead or injured
wildlife are located during Project activities.
Upon completion of the orientation, employees
shall sign a form stating that they attended the
program and understand all biological resource
mitigation measures. Forms verifying worker
attendance shall be filed at the Project
Applicant’s office and be accessible to the City
of Bakersfield, USFWS and CDFW staff. No
untrained personnel shall be allowed to work
onsite with the exception of delivery trucks that
are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under
the supervision of a trained employee.
c. All equipment storage and parking during
construction activities shall be confined to the
designated construction area or to previously
disturbed offsite areas that are not habitat for
listed species.
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 12
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
d. All Project construction activities involving
initial surface disturbance shall occur during
daylight hours.
e. Trenches shall be inspected for entrapped
wildlife each morning prior to the onset of
construction. Before such holes or trenches are
filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for
entrapped animals. Any wildlife so discovered
shall be allowed to escape voluntarily, without
harassment, before construction activities
resume. A professional biologist may remove
wildlife from a trench, hole or other entrapment
out of harm’s way if the immediate welfare of
the individual is in jeopardy. State or federal
listed species may not be handled. Should any
state or federal listed species become
entrapped, CDFW and USFWS shall be
contacted as appropriate.
f. All food-related trash items such as wrappers,
cans, bottles and food scraps generated by
Project construction activities shall be disposed
of in closed containers and removed at least
once each week from the site. Deliberate
feeding of wildlife shall be prohibited.
g. To prevent harassment of special-status
species, construction personnel shall not be
allowed to have firearms or pets on the Project
site.
h. All equipment and work-related materials shall
be contained in closed containers either in the
work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g.
rags, hose, etc.) shall be stored within closed
containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the
work site.
i. All liquids shall be in closed, covered
containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids shall
not be left unattended until clean-up has been
completed.
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 13
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
j. Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the
Project shall be prohibited unless approved by
the USFWS and the CDFW. This is necessary
to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of
special-status species using adjacent habitats,
and to avoid the depletion of prey upon which
they depend. If rodent control must be
conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used
because of its proven lower risk to SJKF.
k. Any employee who inadvertently kills or
injures a listed species, or who finds any such
wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped on the
Project site, shall be required to report the
incident immediately to a designated site
representative (e.g., foreman, project manager,
environmental inspector, etc.).
l. In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed
species, escape ramps or structures shall be
installed immediately, if possible, to allow the
subject wildlife to escape unimpeded.
m. In the case of injured special-status wildlife, the
CDFW shall be notified immediately. During
business hours Monday through Friday, the
phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non-
business hours, report to (800) 952-5400.
Notification shall include the date, time,
location, and circumstances of the incident.
Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care
of the injured animal shall be followed by the
contractor onsite.
n. In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as
threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the
CDFW shall be immediately (within 24 hours)
notified by phone or in person, and shall
document the initial notification in writing
within 2 working days of the findings of any
such wildlife. Notification shall include the
date, time, location, and circumstances of the
incident.
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 14
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
o. Prior to commencement of construction, work
areas not adjacent to public streets shall be
clearly marked with fencing, stakes with rope
or cord, or other means of delineating the work
area boundaries.
p. If any suspected federally or State protected
plant or animal species is found to be present
during Project-related construction activities,
occupied areas shall be avoided and the
construction contractor shall be required by its
contract to call a CDFW-approved biologist to
the site to identify the species. If the species is
protected, the qualified biologist shall notify
the USFWS and CDFW of any previously
unreported protected species. Any take of
protected wildlife shall be reported
immediately to USFWS and CDFW.
Threshold b: There is no potential for the
Project to have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the CDFG or USFWS because these
resources do not exist on the Project site.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold c: There is no potential for the
Project to have a substantial adverse effect
on State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means because these resources do not exist
on the Project site.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold d: 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
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 15
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Project site does not function as part of a
wildlife movement corridor.
Threshold e: 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.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: 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.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
4.4 Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Project would not
impact any known historical resources and
would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of any known
historical resources pursuant to California
Code of Regulation, Section 15064.5.
However, there is a remote possibility that
subsurface historical resources may exist
and may be unearthed and impacted during
Project-related construction activities.
Therefore, the Project’s potential impact to
potentially present subsurface historical
resources would be significant prior to
mitigation.
CR MM-1: Prior to construction and as needed
throughout the construction period involving ground-
disturbing construction activities, a construction
worker cultural awareness training program shall be
provided to all new construction workers within one
week of employment at the project site. The training
shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified
cultural resources specialist that meets the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards. Workers attending the training shall sign
a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and
made available to the City of Bakersfield upon
request.
Professional Cultural
Resource Specialist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit or any
permit that authorizes
ground disturbance
Less-than Significant
Impact with mitigation
incorporated
CR MM-2: If suspected historical or archaeological
resources are encountered during ground disturbance
activities, the construction contractor(s) shall be
required by their contract to immediately cease work
within 100 feet of the resources and have the area
partitioned off until a qualified cultural resource
specialist that meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Construction Contractors
and Professional Cultural
Resource Specialist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If suspected cultural
resources are encountered
Less-than Significant
Impact with mitigation
incorporated
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 16
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can
evaluate the resources found and make
recommendations. If the specialist determines that
the discovery represents a potentially significant
cultural resource, additional investigations may be
required. If cultural resources are discovered that
may have relevance to Native Americans, the
specialist or Project Applicant must provide written
notice to the City of Bakersfield, Tejon Indian Tribe,
Native American Heritage Commission, and any
other appropriate individuals, agencies, and/or
groups as determined by the specialist in consultation
with the City of Bakersfield to receive input
regarding treatment and disposition of the resource,
which may include avoidance, testing, and/or
excavation to prevent destruction of the resource
and/or to allow documentation of the resource for
research potential. All reports, correspondence, and
determinations regarding the discovery shall be
submitted to the California Historical Resources
Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley
Information Center at California State University
Bakersfield.
Threshold b: The Project would not impact
any known archaeological sites and would
not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of any known
archaeological resources pursuant to
California Code of Regulation, Section
15064.5. However, there is a possibility
that subsurface archaeological resources
may exist and may be unearthed and
impacted during Project-related
construction activities. Therefore, the
Project’s potential impact to potentially
present subsurface archaeological
resources would be significant prior to
mitigation.
See CR MM-1 above. Professional Archaeologist
retained by Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit or any
permit that authorizes
ground disturbance
Less-than Significant
Impact with mitigation
incorporated
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 17
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
See CR MM-2 above. Construction Contractors
and Professional
Archaeologist retained by
Project Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If suspected cultural
resources are encountered
Less-than Significant
Impact with mitigation
incorporated
Threshold c: The Project site does not
contain a cemetery and no known
cemeteries are located within the
immediate site vicinity. Although the
Project Applicant would be required to
comply with the applicable provisions of
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5
and California Public Resources Code §
5097 et. seq., the Project’s potential
impacts to buried human remain, if
discovered, s would be significant on a
direct and cumulatively-considerable basis
prior to mitigation.
CR MM-3: During construction, if human remains
are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be
prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol,
guidelines, and channels of communication outlined
by the Native American Heritage Commission, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate
Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the
discovery of human remains, at the direction of the
county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.
Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any
reburial of Native American human remains or
associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and
shall not be governed by public disclosure
requirements of the California Public Records Act.
The coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set
forth in California Government Code Section 6254
(r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to
withhold public disclosure information related to
such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set
forth in California Government Code Section 6254
(r).
Construction Contractors County Coroner
If human remains are
discovered
Less-than Significant
Impact with mitigation
incorporated
4.5 Energy
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The amount of energy and
fuel consumed by construction and
operation of the Project would not be
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Furthermore, the Project would not cause or
result in the need for additional energy
facilities or energy delivery systems.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 18
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold b: The Project would not
conflict with or obstruct the achievement of
energy conservation goals within the State
of California identified in State and local
plans for renewable energy and energy
efficiency.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A
4.6 Geology and Soils
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Implementation of the Project
would not expose people or structures to
substantial direct or indirect adverse effects
related to liquefaction or fault rupture. The
Project site is subject to seismic ground
shaking associated with earthquakes;
however, mandatory compliance with local
and State regulatory requirements and
building codes would ensure that the
Project minimizes potential hazards related
to seismic ground shaking to less than
significant levels.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Implementation of the Project
would not result in substantial soil erosion
or loss of topsoil. The Project Applicant
would be required to obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for construction activities
minimizing impacts to less than significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: There is no potential for the
Project’s construction or operation to cause,
or be impacted by, on- or off-site landslides
or lateral spreading. Potential hazards
associated with unstable soils would be
precluded through mandatory adherence to
the recommendations contained in the site-
specific geotechnical report during Project
construction.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: The Project site contains soils
with very low susceptibility to expansion;
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 19
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
therefore, the Project would not create
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property associated with the presence of
expansive soils. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Threshold e: No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are proposed
to be installed on the Project site.
Accordingly, no impact would occur
associated with soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal systems.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold f: The Project would not impact
any known paleontological resource or
unique geological feature. However,
construction activities on the Project site
extending more than six (6) feet in depth
have the potential to unearth and adversely
impact a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature that may be
buried beneath the ground surface.
GEO MM-1: Prior to construction and as needed
throughout the construction period involving ground-
disturbing construction activities, a construction
worker paleontological resource awareness training
program shall be provided to all new construction
workers within one week of employment at the
project site, if their work will involve ground-
disturbing construction activities greater than six feet
in depth in older alluvium soils. The training shall be
prepared and conducted by a professional
paleontologist. Workers attending the training shall
sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant
and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon
request.
Professional paleontologist
retained by the Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Less-than-Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
GEO MM-2: If paleontological resources are
encountered, all work within 100 feet of the resources
shall halt until a qualified paleontologist can be
called to the site to evaluate the resources and make
recommendations. Paleontological resource
materials may include fossils, plant impressions, or
animal tracks that have been preserved in rock. If the
qualified paleontologist determines that the
discovery represents a potentially significant
paleontological resource, additional investigations
and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate
adverse impacts to less than significant levels.
Construction within 100 feet of the resources found
Construction contractors
and professional
paleontologist retained by
the Project Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If paleontological resources
are discovered
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 20
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation
measures are implemented or the materials are
determined to be to be less than significant by the
paleontologist.
GEO MM-3: Recovered specimens, if any, shall be
properly prepared to a point of identification and
permanent preservation, including screen washing
sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation
of specimens into a professional, accredited public
museum repository with a commitment to archival
conservation and permanent retrievable storages
shall be required for discoveries of significance as
determined by the paleontologist.
Professional paleontologist
retained by the Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If paleontological resources
are discovered
GEO MM-4: A final monitoring and mitigation
report of findings and significance shall be prepared,
including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and
necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the
original location of the specimens. The report shall
be submitted to the City of Bakersfield prior to final
building inspection.
Professional paleontologist
retained by the Project
Applicant
City of Bakersfield or
its designee
If paleontological resources
are discovered and prior to
final building inspection
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
Geology and Soils.
GEO RR-5: In compliance with City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code Chapter 15.05, California Building
Code, construction of the Project is required to
adhere to the California Building Standards Code and
its requirement to prepare and adhere to site-specific
recommendations contained in a geotechnical report
prepared for the Project site. As such, compliance
with the recommendations provided in the Project’s
geotechnical study prepared by Krazan & Associates,
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 21
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Inc. and dated May 6, 2019 (contained as Technical
Appendix E to this EIR) is required.
GEO RR-6: To address wind erosion, the Project
construction activities are required to comply with
the provisions of Chapter 15 Section 104.12 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure that dust
abatement measures comply with the current
standards set for by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
GEO RR-7: The Project Applicant is required,
pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board,
to obtain coverage under the State’s General
Construction Storm Water Permit for construction
activities (NPDES permit). Compliance with the
NPDES permit involves the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related
activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that construction
contractors will be required to implement during
construction activities to ensure that waterborne
pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is
prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise
appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being
discharged from the subject property. Examples of
BMPs that may be utilized during construction
include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers,
geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment
traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding.
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Project would generate
approximately 83.15 net new MT CO2e
annually of GHGs, which is significant on
a cumulatively-considerable basis.
GHG MM-1: Construction contractors shall assure
that construction equipment greater than 150
horsepower achieves or is equivalent to or better than
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California
Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 emissions
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
Significant and
Unavoidable Cumulatively-
Considerable Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 22
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
standards, or Tier 3 standards if Tier 4 equipment is
not available at the time of construction. Prior to
grading and building permit issuance, the
construction contractor(s) shall submit an equipment
list to the City’s Development Services Director
confirming that the equipment used is compliant.
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 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
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
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 23
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
may be constructed and operated without a PV
system.
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.
Threshold b: The Project would be
consistent with the CARB 2020 Scoping
Plan Update, which was prepared to
address the GHG reduction requirements
set forth by SB 32. Because the Project
would be consistent with the Scoping Plan
Update, the Project also would not interfere
with the State’s ability to achieve the GHG
reduction requirements of SB 32. Thus, the
Project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases, and impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a and b: During Project
construction and operation, mandatory
compliance to federal, State, and local
regulations would ensure that the Project
would not create a significant hazard to the
environment due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of hazardous materials.
No mitigation is required.
The City of Bakersfield is required to assure that
implementing development complies with the
assumptions relied upon herein and applicable
regulatory requirements pertaining to the topic of
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
-
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 24
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
HAZ RR-1: Construction contractors shall be
required to comply with all applicable federal, State,
and local laws and regulations regarding the
transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐
related materials, including but not limited
requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the
Central Valley RWQCB.
HAZ RR-2: If the VA handles hazardous materials
as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and
Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, it shall be
required to comply with California’s Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory
Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Kern
County Fire Department and the State Office of
Emergency Services regarding any release or
threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless
of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare
a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
(HMBEP).
HAZ RR-3: Activities involving the collection and
disposal of medical wastes are required to comply
with California’s Medical Waste Management Act of
2017.
HAZ RR-4: All transporters of medical wastes
must be registered hazardous waste haulers with a
valid Hazardous Waste Transporter Registration
through the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC).
HAZ RR-5: The proposed Project would be
required to comply with the Kern County Operational
Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure
compliance with established procedures, rules, and
regulations for emergency responses in the event of a
hazardous materials incident.
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 25
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold c: The Project Site is located
within one-quarter mile of four schools;
however, the Project would be required to
comply with applicable federal, State, and
local regulations related to the handling,
storage, use, and transport of hazardous
materials and biomedical wastes to ensure
that students are not exposed to substantial
hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: The Project site is not located
on any list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: The Project is consistent with
the requirements of the Meadow Field
ALUCP. As such, the Project would not
result in an airport safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold f: The Project site does not
contain any emergency facilities nor does it
serve as an emergency evacuation route.
During construction and long-term
operation, adequate emergency vehicle
access is required to be provided.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project
would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold g: The Project site is not located
in close proximity to wildlands or areas
with high fire hazards. Thus, the Project
would not expose people or structures to a
significant wildfire risk.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold a and e: The Project would be
required to comply with a Stormwater
The City of Bakersfield is required to assure that
implementing development complies with the
N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 26
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
construction-related activities, including
grading. Best management practices
(BMPs) would be implemented as part of
the SWPPP to ensure that all potential
pollutants of concern are prevented,
minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately
treated. Under long-term conditions, the
Project’s proposed water quality/retention
basin would capture all first-flush flows
generated on the Project site and infiltrate
the captured water into the groundwater
basin. Furthermore, the Project site is not
tributary to any impaired water bodies
listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list. As
such, the Project has no potential to cause
or contribute to surface water quality
impacts downstream. Accordingly, the
Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality, and would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Impacts
would be less than significant.
assumptions relied upon herein and applicable
regulatory requirements pertaining to the topic of
Hydrology and Water Quality, which include the
following:
HYD RR-1: The Project Applicant and construction
contractor are required to comply with the
requirements of a NPDES permit, and SWPPP.
Compliance with the NPDES permit and the SWPPP
require an effective combination of erosion control
and sediment control measures (i.e., Best
Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate
discharges to surface water from storm water and
non-stormwater discharges during construction
activities.
HYD RR-2: During construction, Project
construction contractors are required to comply with
the requirements of the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11 of Title
24, California Code of Regulations) or any
subsequent version of the Title 24 in effect at the time
of building permit issuance, which requires among
other items the installation of low water-use features.
Threshold b: The Project would be
provided potable water by the Cal Water.
The Cal Water UWMP for the Bakersfield
District forecasts 70,314 acre‐feet of
reliable supply for a normal year, single‐
year drought, and multi‐year drought in 5‐
year increments through 2045. Similarly,
the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability
Plan estimates groundwater safe yield
combined with other sources of supply and
supplemental supply projects which
combined fully mitigate potential future
overdraft. With respect to groundwater
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 27
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
recharge, runoff generated on site would be
conveyed to the proposed on-site water
quality/retention basin, where the runoff
would infiltrate into the on-site soils.
Accordingly, the Project would not
substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Threshold c: For the reasons discussed
under the analysis of Thresholds a. and e.,
Project impacts to surface and groundwater
quality would be less than significant. The
Project has no potential to increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site, and the Project would not create runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems. Additionally, the Project site and
surrounding areas are not subject to flood
hazards. Accordingly, the Project would
not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner which
would result in flooding on or off site,
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
drainage systems, or impede or redirect
flood flows. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: The Project site is not located
within or near any flood hazard areas, is not
subject to tsunami hazards, and there are no
enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water
in proximity to the Project site capable of
producing seiches that could affect the
Project site. Accordingly, Project would not
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 28
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
result in any impacts related to the risk of
release of pollutants due to Project
inundation from floods, tsunamis, or
seiches.
4.10 Land Use and Planning
Threshold a: The Project has no potential
to physically divide an established
community.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold b: The Project is a compatible
land use within the Service Industrial (SI)
General Plan designation and is consistent
with the General Manufacturing (M-2)
zoning classification, which allows all uses
permitted in the CO zone, including
medical clinics. The Project does not
conflict with General Plan goals and
policies and the general intent of the
General Plan and has no potential to result
in significant land use and planning
conflicts in the context of compliance with
applicable environmental plans, policies,
and regulations beyond those identified in
other Subsections of this EIR.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.11 Noise
Threshold a: Noise levels generated by the
Project’s short-term construction would be
less than significant at the nearest sensitive
receptor. On-site operational noise levels
would be less than significant at the nearest
sensitive receptors. In addition, Project-
related traffic noise increases would be
below the identified thresholds of
significance under Existing and long-range
traffic conditions. Accordingly, the Project
would not generate substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 29
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Threshold b: The Project’s construction
and operational activities would not result
in a perceptible groundborne vibration or
noise that exceed thresholds of
significance.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: The Project site is located
within the Airport Influence Area of
Meadows Field Airport but is located well
outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level
contour boundary of the airport. The
Project medical outpatient commercial land
use is considered normally acceptable with
exterior noise levels of 55-60 dBA CNEL.
Therefore, the Project would not expose
people residing or working in the Project
area to excessive noise levels related to a
private airstrip, airport land use plan or
public airport our public use airport.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.12 Transportation
Threshold a: The Project is consistent with
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan,
including the goals and policies of the
General Plan Circulation Element, and also
would be required to comply with all
applicable requirements of the City’s
Municipal Code. As there are no other
applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or
policies addressing the circulation system,
Project impacts due to a conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
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
Transportation, which include the following
regulatory requirements.
TRN RR-1: Prior to issuance of building permits,
the Project Applicant shall pay appropriate Traffic
Impact Fee (TIF) fees at the rates then in effect in
accordance with Chapter 15.84 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
I I I I I I I
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022080337
Page 30
THRESHOLD
MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
(RR)
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
TRN RR-2: All off-site roadway improvements
shall comply with applicable provisions of City of
Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and
Traffic) and Chapter 13.12 (Development
Improvements Standards and Specifications).
Threshold b: The Project VMT is less than
the threshold of significance and impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: With mandatory compliance
with City design standards, including
standards contained within the City’s
Municipal Code, the Project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature. Additionally, due
to the short distance between the Project site
and the on- and off-ramps at SR 99, the
Project would not result in increased
hazards to transportation as a result of
incompatible uses, and impacts due to
incompatible uses would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: The provision of adequate
emergency access is required during both
construction and long-term operation, in
accordance with City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code and Fire Department
requirements. Accordingly, the Project
would have adequate emergency access,
and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a: The Project site does not
contain any known tribal cultural resources.
Nonetheless, Project construction activities
have the potential to unearth and adversely
impact tribal cultural resources that may be
buried or masked at the Project site.
Mitigation Measures CR MM-1 through CR MM-3
shall apply.
Less-than-Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
I I I I I I I
Exhibit B
Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings and
Mitigation Measures
Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 21-0399
(SCH #2022080337)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient
Clinic
State Clearinghouse No. 2022080337
Lead Agency
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
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
August 8, 2023
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 City of Bakersfield Actions Covered By the EIR .................................................................... 2
1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation ..................................................................... 2
2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings ................................................................................. 5
2.1 General Findings ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not
Requiring Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level
of Less than Significant ......................................................................................................... 31
2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable .................................... 44
2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed
Project Should It Be Implemented ......................................................................................... 46
2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ................................................................ 47
2.7 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 48
3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations .......................................................................... 53
4.0 Additional Facts on Record .............................................................................................. 54
4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 54
4.2 Custodian of Record .............................................................................................................. 55
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
1
1.0 Introduction
The Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield (the “Planning Commission”) in approving the
Veterans Affairs (VA) Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project (the “Project”), makes the
Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as
described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for
the Project on behalf of the City of Bakersfield (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR
(containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR),
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the
“EIR” unless otherwise specified.
1.1 Project Summary
1.1.1 Site Location
The 10.05 gross-acre Project site is located within the northern portion of the City of Bakersfield in
Kern County, California. Kern County is bound by Kings, Tulare, and Inyo counties to the north; San
Bernardino County to the east; Los Angeles and Ventura counties to the south; and Santa Barbara and
San Luis Obispo counties to the west. At the local scale, the Project site is located west of State Route
99 (SR-99) and southeast of the intersection of Olive Drive and Knudsen Drive. The Project site
includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-020-28 and -30.
1.1.2 Project Description
The Project includes the development of 10.05 gross acres with a medical outpatient facility which
would be operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Features include a 39,648 s.f. single-
story building (net usable 30,100 safe), 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.
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.
The site development action for the Project entails a Site Plan Review No. 21-0399. Site Plan Review
No. 21-0399 would permit the development of a medical outpatient facility on 10.05 gross acres, which
would be operated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
1.1.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project is to develop
a modern, state-of-the-art community-based outpatient medical facility to serve U.S. military veterans
in the Bakersfield area. The Project would achieve its underlying purpose and goal through the
following objectives.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
2
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.
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.
1.2 City of Bakersfield Actions Covered By the EIR
The City of Bakersfield has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City
serves as the Lead Agency for the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City’s
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR and Site Plan No. 21-0399.
The Planning Commission will direct the Development Services Director whether to approve Site Plan
No. 21-0399. Other agencies also may use the EIR as part of their decision-making processes
concerning the proposed Project.
1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision
makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the
Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
3
significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use
of mitigation measures and project design requirements which have been found to be feasible; and to
disclose to the public the reasons why the City has initiated the Project in the manner chosen in light
of the significant environmental effects which have been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the
City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
o Prepared an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation, which were used as the basis for the
determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The Notice of Preparation
identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project’s EIR as: Aesthetics,
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use &
Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources;
o The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation were sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other
interested parties on August 11, 2022, for a 30-day review period;
o Submitted a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Draft EIR to the State
Clearinghouse on May 5, 2023;
o Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, County Clerk,
other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the
Notice on May 4, 2023 to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day
review period beginning on May 5, 2023, and ending on June 19, 2023;
o Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project
Site on May 4, 2023;
o Made the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR available to the public on the City’s website;
o Published the Notice of Availability in the Bakersfield Californian, which is the newspaper of
general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on May 5, 2023;
o Published a Notice of Time Extension of Public Review and Comment Period to the State
Clearinghouse and on the City’s website on June 14, 2023, extending the public review and
comment period to June 20, 2023 as a courtesy to allow the public additional time to submit
public comments as June 19, 2023 was Juneteenth, although the City was open on June 19,
2023.
o Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period
on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;
o Published a notice on August 28, 2023, in the Bakersfield Californian, the newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a
public hearing on September 7, 2023, to consider the Project and EIR for recommendation to
the City Council;
o Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had
previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on August 28, 2023;
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
4
o Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who
submitted comments the Draft EIR on August 28, 2023 (four comment letters were received);
All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the
administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), which includes all of the
documents relating to the previous review and approval of the Project in 2020 and 2021, when a
mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) was prepared, are on file with the City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
5
2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings
2.1 General Findings
2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent,
professional consulting firm hired by the City and working under the supervision and direction of the
City’s Planning Division’s staff. The Planning Commission, as the City’s final decision-making body
for the Project, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public
agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The
professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the
EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR
and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful
consideration of the Final EIR by the Planning Commission, including comments and responses, all
conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the Planning Commission as the decision-making body
for the Project.
2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR
Finding: The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would
require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Planning Commission recognizes that the Final EIR
incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final
EIR contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The Planning
Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and
has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant
environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible
mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the
Project Applicant declined to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts
of the Project. No information provided to the Planning Commission indicates that the Draft EIR was
inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft EIR.
2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are
applicable to the Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the
Project’s significant impacts. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of
Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that
measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically
stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
6
recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified
environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the
mitigation measures.
2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant
Not Requiring Mitigation
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts
for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental
impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental
effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City
Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact
under the following resource areas:
2.2.1 Aesthetics
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in an area designated as scenic in
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, is not within the City’s Hillside Development Combining
Zone (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.66), and is not within a City-designated Class I or II
Visual Resource Area, Viewshed, or Slope Protection Area. In the far distance on clear days, views are
possible from the Project site and its surrounding area to the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the
Coast Range to the west, and the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the northeast. Because the existing visual
setting of the Project site does not contain significant visual resources, the construction process has no
potential to obscure a scenic view. At a maximum height of ±31 feet, the proposed building would not
be so tall as to obstruct public views or otherwise substantially detract from public views of the
surrounding topographic features and landforms. In some instances, the landscaping and building
constructed on the Project site may intermittently obstruct mountain views in the distance a from the
far northeast corner of the San Lauren Elementary School yard and from roads as drivers travel
immediately adjacent to the Project site along Knudsen Drive. Single views toward the mountains in
the distance across the Project site from these roads typically are of short duration due to travel speeds,
and viewer sensitivity is considered low-to-moderate because as the passing landscape becomes
familiar, vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists using roadway corridors typically focus their
attention on the roadway, roadway signs, and surrounding traffic. As the site exists currently, views
are not available to a front-facing viewer on these roads, and the only potential for the Project to
intermittently obscure a long-distance view would be if a viewer were to look to their side across the
Project site. From the school yard, only viewers in the northeastern-most corner of the yard would
experience partial view obstruction to distant landforms when looking across Knudsen Drive and
across the Project site to the northeast on clear days when distant views are possible; this does not
constitute a substantial adverse effect since distant views would not be obscured by the Project from
any other part of the school site or school yard. As such, the Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on scenic mountain views. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-12)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
7
Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to aesthetics, the
Project will be required to implement the following design feature to further minimize the Project’s
less than significant effect.
AES DF-1. Prior to the approval of building permits and other permits and approvals that
authorize construction, the City of Bakersfield shall review the construction documents and
plans to assure the following:
a. All lighting fixtures shall comply with applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code
Requirements pertaining to lighting and illumination of buildings, parking areas, and
signs.
b. All landscaping shall be installed to comply with all applicable City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code standards pertaining to perimeter landscaping and minimum shade cover.
B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within
the Project site’s immediate vicinity. Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings or known historic
buildings in the vicinity of the Project site. Thus, implementation of the Project would result in no
impacts associated with views from a State scenic highway. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13)
C. In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Census-
defined Bakersfield urbanized area. Because the Project site is located in an area that meets the U.S.
Census Bureau’s definition of an “urbanized area” and is planned for urban uses by the City’s General
Plan, the evaluation in the DEIR focuses on the Project’s compatibility with or potential conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13)
The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality during construction or operation. The Project has no reasonable possibility of conflicting with
the City’s lighting standards contained in Municipal Code Sections 17.71.010 through 17.71.080,
Outdoor Lighting, standards for the illumination of signs contained in Municipal Code Section
17.60.060, and standards for the illumination of parking lots contained in Municipal Code Section
17.58.060. The Project has no reasonable possibility of conflicting with the City’s Municipal Code
standards pertaining to visual blight, codified in Municipal Code Sections 8.27.010 (Property
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
8
Maintenance), 8.80.010 (Abatement of Public Nuisances), and 12.40.050 (Inspection and Removal [of
Trees]). In reviewing the application materials submitted by the Project Applicant for Site Plan Review
No. 21-0399, the materials appear to meet all applicable Municipal Code requirements including but
not limited to the following items pertaining to visual screening. As indicated on the Site Plan Review’s
Conceptual Landscape Plan (refer to Figure 3-4 in Section 3.0, Project Description), landscaping that
will obscure views is proposed along the perimeter of the Project site. Additionally, a low masonry
wall with green screen above is proposed around the loading dock and trash enclosure area on the
southeast facing side of the building. Also, parapets are proposed along the western side of the
building’s roofline to provide visual screening of rooftop equipment. 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. lighting
would be installed by the driveway entrances to the facility and throughout the interior parking area.
In addition, street lights would be installed along the Project site’s frontages with Knudsen Drive,
Landco Drive, and proposed Street A. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13 to 4.1-17)
D. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Sections 17.71.010
to 17.71.080, “Outdoor Lighting,” would ensure that the Project’s pole-mounted and building-mounted
light fixtures would not introduce any design features that would cause artificial light or glare to extents
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As part of City review and approval of
Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 and the review of implementing plans for construction in any area of
the Project site, City staff is obligated to assure that the lighting plans meet all applicable Municipal
Code standards. Based on the Project’s lighting plans and mandatory requirement to comply with the
Municipal Code, lighting impacts would be less than significant. With respect to glare, the Project’s
building materials would consist of a combination of vertical pattern metal panel system, fiber cement
siding system, and masonry walls. The paint colors proposed for the Project would comply with City
development standards including Title 15 (buildings and construction) as well as California Code of
Regulations Title 24 (building code). The building incorporates some glass elements in the form of
window systems with sun shade louvers or awnings and a glass curtain wall with a metal panel canopy.
While window glazing has a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely
affect daytime views experienced from surrounding properties, including motorists along adjacent
roadways, because the glass proposed for the Project would comply with City development standards
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
9
including Title 15 (buildings and construction) as well as California Code of Regulations Title 24
(building code). Also, the Project’s conceptual landscaping plan calls for the perimeter of the site to be
landscaped, inclusive of perimeter trees consisting of shade trees and screen trees which would filter
light from the surrounding street system and limit the ability for vehicle headlights on public streets to
directly shine onto any glass building elements. The glass elements in the building designs also would
be softened by landscaping proposed along the building perimeter, thereby precluding any substantial
sun glare. Last, the public and staff vehicle parking areas would be substantially shaded by tree
canopies, as shown on the Project’s conceptual landscaping plan. Thus, glare impacts from proposed
building elements and parking surfaces would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-17 to 4.1-18)
2.2.2 Air Quality
A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
(Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Air quality impacts from proposed projects within the City of
Bakersfield are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan. In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air
quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the
federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate
consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted AQAPs for O3 and PM10. The Project would not exceed
the SJVAPCD established SPAL limits and, therefore has no possibility of exceeding criteria pollutant
thresholds. Accordingly, the Project, would be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-19)
Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to air quality, the
Project will be required to implement the following regulatory requirements to further minimize the
Project’s less than significant effect.
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.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
10
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. (DEIR, p. 4.2-26)
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.
B. Would the Project result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient
air quality standard? (Threshold “b” for Construction Emissions)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Following SJVAPCD required mitigation measures for all
projects, the construction emission estimates included watering the exposed area three times per day
and reducing vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour. Based on these anticipated activity levels,
the Project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds. As mentioned in the
DEIR, the below PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance consider risks associated with Valley
Fever, specifically including the potential presence of spores within the soil on the Project site and the
Project’s disturbance thereof. Furthermore, Project construction activities do not exacerbate the risk of
Valley Fever any more than natural wind conditions, and it is a natural condition not caused by the
Project. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-20)
The long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would be far less
than SJVAPCD significance threshold levels and would, therefore, not pose a significant impact to
criteria air pollutants. This finding is consistent with the SPAL screening thresholds. Impacts would
be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-21)
The analysis presented in the DEIR is conservative and does not take into account the fact that
once the Project begins operation, the existing VA clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive would permanently
close, and therefore, all of its operational air quality emissions would cease. Based on the fact that the
existing facility is similar in size to the proposed Project (31,400 s.f.), on a net basis, the Project’s
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
11
already very low air quality emissions would result in virtually no impact. Furthermore, as stated in
public testimony from veterans living in the City, unlike the proposed Project, the existing facility does
not offer the full range of services that veterans need, and thus, many veterans drive to the City to Los
Angeles for certain services. Once the Project is in operation, this long-distance driving for services
would no longer be necessary, and all the resulting air quality impacts from vehicle travel over 100
miles to Los Angeles would cease. Thus, the Project would arguably reduce total operational air
quality emissions on a net basis. (DEIR, p. 4.2-21)
The SJVAPCD has screening levels for requiring an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA)
and recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria
pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day
screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable
mitigation measures. Average daily emissions for Project construction and operational activities would
not exceed 100 pounds per day. An AAQA is, therefore, not required for the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-
21 to 4.2-22)
C. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
and visibility. (DEIR, p. 4.2-22)
SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which
is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million
people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. at the maximum
exposed individual resident and worker (MEIR and MEIW, respectively) do not exceed the
significance levels of 20 in one million (20E-06) and 1.0, respectively for the Project. The maximum
predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 0.752 in a million (0.752E-07). The maximum chronic
non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 0.00672. Since the MEIR and MEIW remained far
below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, the Project would not have an adverse
effect to any of the surrounding communities. Potential risk to the population attributable to emissions
of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant (DEIR, pp. 4.2-23 to 4.2-24)
It should be noted that visibility impact analyses are not usually conducted for area sources.
The recommended analysis methodology was initially intended for stationary sources of emissions
which were subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part
60. Since the Project’s emissions are predicted to be significantly less than the PSD threshold levels,
an impact at either the Dome Land Wilderness or the Sequoia National Park Areas (the two nearest
Class 1 areas to the Project) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted
emissions, the Project is not expected to have any adverse impact to visibility at any Class 1 Area.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-24)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
12
D. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project entails a proposed VA community-based outpatient
medical clinic located near commercial, public facility and residential uses. Expected uses of the
Project are not known to be a source of nuisance odors, and are not identified in the SJVAPCD’s
GAMAQI as such. Accordingly, the Project is not anticipated to have substantial odor impacts. Impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-24)
2.2.3 Biological Resources
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Because no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
is present on the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9)
B. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Because no wetlands or potential waters of the U.S., or potential
waters of the State are present on the Project site; the proposed Project has no potential to have a
substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9)
C. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The vicinity surrounding the Project site is highly disturbed by
urban development, and therefore, the Project site does not serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Because
the Project site is a relatively small parcel of disturbed non-native ruderal species habitat, the site is
not conducive to serve as, interfere substantially with or impede established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
13
D. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Threshold “e”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no biological resources on the Project site which are
separately protected by local policies. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9)
E. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? (Threshold “f”)
Finding: No impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9)
2.2.4 Energy
A. Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities associated with the Project would require
electricity use to power the construction equipment. The electricity use during construction would vary
during different phases of construction: the majority of construction equipment during grading would
be gas-powered or diesel-powered, while later construction phases would require electricity-powered
equipment such as nail guns for interior construction and sprayers for architectural coatings. Overall,
the use of electricity would be temporary in nature and would fluctuate according to the phase of
construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction
equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would
result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, Project-related
construction activities would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands and impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-6 to 4.5-7)
It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the proposed Project would be
powered by natural gas and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with respect to natural gas usage. (DEIR, p. 4.5-7)
The use of energy resources by vehicles and equipment would fluctuate according to the phase
of construction. To limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, the construction contractors
are anticipated to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
14
accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.
In addition, electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines
and connection, which could minimize or avoid the use of generators that are less efficient than tying
into existing PG&E infrastructure. Furthermore, construction trips would not result in unnecessary use
of energy since the Project site is located close to SR-99 which would provide a direct route from
various areas of the region. Moreover, all construction-equipment would cease upon completion of
Project construction. Thus, impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be
temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.
Overall, it is expected that construction fuel used during the proposed Project’s construction would not
be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with respect to transportation energy. (DEIR, p. 4.5-7)
Operation of the Project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas
compared to existing conditions and would result also in transportation energy use. However, because
the opening of the Project would cause the existing VA clinic in Bakersfield on Westwind Drive to
close, any net increase usage of energy (if an increase at all) would be very small. Operational use of
energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of the buildings water heating; operation of
electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and
parking lot lighting. It is expected that, on a gross basis without netting out the energy being consumed
by the existing VA clinic, the Project would consume 371,171 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) in
electricity and 462,137 kilo-British thermal units (kBTU/yr) in natural gas. Because the Project would
be built to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the Project would not result in wasteful or
unnecessary natural gas demands. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-7 to 4.5-8) It is likely that the Project would be more
efficient than the existing facility, given that it will be built subject to modern standards and
regulations, which are much more protective of the environment than those that existed when the
existing clinic was built over 30 years ago.
The Project also would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor
vehicles traveling to and from the site. However, because the opening of the Project would cause the
existing VA clinic in Bakersfield to close, any net increase usage of transportation energy (if an
increase at all) would be very small. Further, because the proposed outpatient client would offer
services that are not currently offered at the existing VA clinic in Bakersfield, and veterans are traveling
to Los Angeles and other further VA facilities to receive these medical services under existing
conditions, it is reasonable to expect that transportation energy consumption would substantially
decrease with implementation of the Project. The Project is also within an urbanized area with nearby
amenities and public transit options. Additionally, the Project would include bicycle racks and storage
for employee use. These features and aspects of the Project would contribute in minimizing VMT and
transportation-related fuel usage. Overall, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated
with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar
development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-
related fuel usage or transportation energy. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8)
B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? (Threshold “b”)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
15
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: At this time, the City has not adopted local programs or policies
that support energy efficiency and/or sustainability that would apply to the Project. The Project does
not have any additional ability to incorporate sources of renewable energy (e.g., solar panels) other
than what has already been included in the proposal, because pursuant to the relevant contract with the
U.S. federal government, the Project must be built to the detailed specifications approved in the already
completed federal procurement process and cannot be modified, unless approved by the VA. However,
the Project’s specifications approved by the VA require a number of energy efficiency measures to be
included in the Project. The Project’s mobile equipment and vehicles would comply with federal, state,
and regional requirements where applicable. As applicable, the Project would utilize the best available
equipment to improve diesel fuel efficiency, and equipment that uses energy would implement modern
design and technology to maximize efficiency improvements. The Project would not conflict with or
obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would ensure impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-8 to 4.5-9)
2.2.5 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death involving (Threshold “a”):
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no known active or potentially active faults on or
trending toward the Project site and the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project
site, the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects related to ground rupture. (DEIR, p. 4.6-7)
The Project site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to
experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not
considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California area.
As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct
the proposed VA community-based outpatient medical clinic building and other site features in
accordance with the California Building Code, which provides standards that must be met to safeguard
life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction,
quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and
have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the California
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
16
Building Code requires development projects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site-
specific geologic and seismic conditions and implement the site-specific recommendations contained
therein to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking,
including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate
foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project Applicant
retained a professional geotechnical firm, Krazan & Associates, to prepare a geotechnical report for
the Project site. This geotechnical report complies with the requirements of the California Building
Code. With mandatory compliance with building code standards and site-specific design and
construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people
or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground
shaking. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-7 to 4.6-8)
Due to the observed soil characteristics on the Project site and the lack of shallow groundwater
beneath the site, liquefaction potential is considered to be low. Regardless, the City of Bakersfield
would require the Project site be developed in accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety
guidelines, including the standard requirements of the California Building Code to minimize potential
liquefaction hazards. In addition, the Project would be required by the City of Bakersfield to comply
with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical report for the
Project site to further reduce the risk of seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial
hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8)
The Project site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. There are no hillsides
or steep slopes on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Mandatory compliance with
the recommendations contained within the Project site’s geotechnical report would ensure that the
Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and
abutting off-site areas. With mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the
geotechnical report, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and
implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to
surrounding properties. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8)
B. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control
Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General
Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities, a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that
include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one
(1) acre of total land area. Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related
activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant
will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution –
including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
17
prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be
utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain
inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Mandatory compliance with
the SWPPP would ensure that the Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 to 4.6-9)
Upon Project build-out, the Project site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and
impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be captured, treated to reduce
waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and be filtered into the ground by the proposed on-site
retention basins. Accordingly, the amount of erosion that occurs on the Project site would be minimized
upon buildout of the Project and would be reduced relative to existing conditions. Because the Project
would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term
soil erosion and loss of topsoil, impacts related to post-development soil erosion would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)
C. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is relatively flat and no substantial natural or man-
made slopes are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Because the Project would be engineered for
long-term stability and constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained
within the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts associated with landslide hazards would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)
The geotechnical report prepared for the Project site indicated that the settlement potential can
be attenuated through the excavation and recompaction of fill soils. The City will condition
implementing development to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction
recommendations contained in the Project’s geotechnical report. With mandatory compliance with the
Project’s geotechnical report, impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)
Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. Based on the Project site’s
lack of shallow groundwater, liquefaction on the Project site is considered to be low. Thus, the potential
for lateral spreading is low. Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-11)
D. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Threshold
“d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
18
Facts in Support of Finding: R-Value tests performed by Krazan on the Project site’s soils
determined that the expansion pressure of the soils was nil. As such, the Project would not be located
on expansive soil and would not create substantial risks to life or property; therefore, impacts would
be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-11)
E. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water? (Threshold “e”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Wastewater service for the Project site is provided by North of the
River Sanitation District and no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed
as part of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.6-11)
2.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project, which has very minimal GHG
emissions below virtually all numerical thresholds of significance relied on by lead agencies, would
not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the Statewide GHG reduction mandates and would be
consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of
the Project would not actively interfere with any future federally-, State-, or locally-mandated retrofit
obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies such as diesel particulate filters, emissions
upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated to legally require development
projects to assist in meeting State-adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those
established under EO S-3-05, EO B-30-15, or SB 32. It also bears noting that it is very likely the
Project will be much more efficient and result in less emissions than the existing VA clinic, given it
will be constructed and operated subject to modern regulations that are much more protective of the
environment than those that existed when the existing VA clinic was constructed over 30 years ago.
For these reasons, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (DEIR, p. 4.7-20)
2.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Threshold “a”)
B. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
19
Facts in Support of Finding: Based on the Phase I ESA conducted by Krazan, the Project site
contains no evidence of RECs, CRECs, HRECs or other environmental issues. No significant hazard
to the public or the environment would occur through a reasonable risk of upset or the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with these features that are part of the existing site
condition. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-8)
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project site
during construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based
substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if
improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other
substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during
construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental
releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a
standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling,
transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction
site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local
laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related
materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Central Valley
RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project’s
short-term construction activities would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment
through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-8 to 4.8-9)
The proposed building would operate as a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient
medical facility, and hazardous materials and biohazardous materials and medical wastes are expected
to be present as part of the facility’s operation. The VA would be required to comply with California’s
Medical Waste Management Act of 2017. All transporters of biomedical waste also must hold a
Hazardous Waste Transporter Registration through the California DTSC. All biomedical wastes and
hazardous materials used or stored at the proposed clinic would require the VA to comply with all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal
of hazardous substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project
would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
storage, emission, or disposal of biomedical wastes or hazardous materials, nor would the Project
increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials
into the environment. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations,
during long-term operation, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the
environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of biomedical wastes or hazardous materials.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-9)
To ensure that Project construction activities do not inadvertently release hazardous materials
into the environment, the following regulatory requirements are required.
HAZ RR-1. Construction contractors shall be required to comply with all applicable federal,
State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
20
construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA,
DTSC, and the Central Valley RWQCB.
HAZ RR-2. If the VA handles hazardous materials as defined in Section 25500 of California
Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, it shall be required to comply with
California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires
immediate reporting to the Kern County Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency
Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of
the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business
Emergency Plan (HMBEP).
HAZ RR-3. Activities involving the collection and disposal of medical wastes are required to
comply with California’s Medical Waste Management Act of 2017.
HAZ RR-4. All transporters of medical wastes must be registered hazardous waste haulers
with a valid Hazardous Waste Transporter Registration through the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
HAZ RR-5. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Kern County
Operational Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure compliance with established
procedures, rules, and regulations for emergency responses in the event of a hazardous
materials incident.
C. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The San Lauren Elementary School is located within one-quarter
mile of the Project site. Accordingly, the Project has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school. The use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-
from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to
comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public
safety hazards. Accordingly, there would be no potential for existing or proposed schools to be exposed
to substantial safety hazards associated with emission, handling of, or the routine transport of
hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project site and impacts would be less than
significant. Additionally, as disclosed in DEIR Subsection 4.2, the Project’s toxic air contaminant
emissions (and their associated health risks) would be less than significant, and in fact, far below
applicable thresholds of significance. (DEIR, p. 4.8-10)
D. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Threshold “d”)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
21
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Because the Project site is not located on any list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project has no potential
to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (DEIR,
p. 4.8-10)
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
(Threshold “e”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located 0.9-mile southwest of the Meadow
Fields Airport. According to Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project
site is located inside of Compatibility Zone “C” for the Meadows Field Airport; however, the Project
site is located outside of the noise contours of the airport. The Project land use is consistent with
permitted uses inside of Compatibility Zone “C” of the ALUCP, and therefore, there is no potential for
implementation of the Project to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-10)
Regarding other airport related risks to occupants, the Meadows Field land use exhibit allows
commercial, industrial, and low-density residential uses within the Project site. The ALUCP also
allows the construction of medical clinics and single-story offices within APLUCP Zones B and C,
subject to a density limitation of 150 persons/acre. As designed, the approximately 10.05-gross acre
VA community-based outpatient clinic development would not exceed the allowable density.
Therefore, the Project would not result in additional safety hazards beyond the baseline condition of
the range of land use activities the APLUCP allows including adjacent commercial uses. Thus, the
Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area. (DEIR, p. 4.8-11)
F. Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “f”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor
does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the
proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles.
As part of the Project design, a dedicated ambulatory pick-up area is proposed. As part of the City’s
discretionary review process, the City of Bakersfield reviewed the Project’s application materials to
ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site
and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
22
Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the Kern County Operational
Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure compliance with established procedures, rules, and
regulations for emergency responses in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. (DEIR, p. 4.8-11)
G. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Threshold “g”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard
severity zone. Neither Cal Fire nor the City of Bakersfield identify the Project site within an area
susceptible to wildland fires and the Project site and surrounding areas generally consist of commercial,
industrial, and/or residential uses, which are generally not associated with wildland fire hazards.
Because the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-11)
2.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Threshold “a”)
B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? (Threshold “e”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the requirements of the Central Valley RWQCB and
Chapter 15.05 (California Building Code) of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, the Project
Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit for construction
activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as
clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In
addition, the Project would be required to comply with the WQCP. Compliance with the NPDES permit
and the WQCP involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related
activities, including grading. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential
pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being
discharged from the subject property. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the
Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-7 to 4.9-8)
All runoff generated on the Project site would be treated by the proposed on-site water
quality/retention basin, which would provide water quality treatment of storm water prior to infiltration
of the runoff into the on-site soils. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield along with the County of Kern
adopted a Storm Water Management Plan. The Commercial and Industrial Element of the Storm Water
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
23
Management Plan establishes measures to control potential pollutants from ongoing operations in that
category of land use. Accordingly, during operation of the proposed Project, the City's program for
"best conventional pollutant control technology" would be in effect. This includes site inspections by
City personnel and enforcement of vegetation, sediment, and debris that may accumulate in
retention/detention basins. With implementation of the proposed water quality/retention basin and
compliance with the Storm Water Management Plan, long-term operation of the Project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality, and the Project would not conflict with the Storm Water Management
Plan requirements. (DEIR, p. 4.9-9)
Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to hydrology and
water quality, the Project will be required to implement the following regulatory requirements to
further minimize the Project’s less than significant effect.
HYD RR-1. The Project Applicant and construction contractor are required to comply with
the requirements of a NPDES permit and SWPPP. Compliance with the NPDES permit and
the SWPPP require an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures
(i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate discharges to surface water from
storm water and non-stormwater discharges during construction activities.
HYD RR-2. During construction, Project construction contractors are required to comply with
the requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11
of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) or any subsequent version of the Title 24 in effect
at the time of building permit issuance, which requires among other items the installation of
low water-use features.
C. Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No operating groundwater wells occur on the Project site under
existing conditions, and no wells are proposed as part of the Project. As such, the Project would not
result in the direct long-term extraction of groundwater supplies. (DEIR, p. 4.9-9)
The Project would be served with potable water by California Water Service (Cal Water). The
Project site is located in the Bakersfield District North Garden water system. The Bakersfield District
derives its water supply from a combination of groundwater, untreated local surface water purchased
from the City of Bakersfield, and treated local surface and imported water purchased from Kern County
Water Agency (KCWA) Improvement District 4 (ID-4). The combination of groundwater and
purchased imported water supplies is expected to be sufficient to support the Bakersfield District’s
projected water demand through 2045. (DEIR, p. 4.9-9) The Project does not have a significant water
demand.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
24
The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Bakersfield District forecasts 70,314
acre‐feet of reliable supply for a normal year, single‐year drought, and multi‐year drought in 5‐year
increments through 2045. Similarly, the KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan estimates
groundwater safe yield combined with other sources of supply and supplemental supply projects which
combined “fully mitigate potential future overdraft”. due to the actions to be undertaken pursuant to
the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan, as well as the fact that the Bakersfield District would
have adequate groundwater to serve the Project, the Project’s water demand would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies. The Project’s relatively low water demand would not stress or
otherwise significantly impact the Cal Water’s water sources, whether local groundwater or purchased
water that comes from the Colorado River or the State Water Project. Further, the end result of the
Project will be to essentially move the existing VA clinic, and thus it does not result in any truly new
water demand. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-9 to 4.9-10)
With implementation of the proposed Project, runoff generated on the site would be conveyed
to the proposed on-site water quality/retention basin, where the runoff would infiltrate into the on-site
soils. Because runoff from the Project site would be captured to allow infiltration into on-site soils,
the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10)
D. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would (Threshold “c”):
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on or off site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: With implementation of the Project’s water quality/retention basin
and implementation of a SWPPP during construction activities, Project impacts to water quality,
including erosion and siltation, during both construction and long-term operation would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10)
All runoff generated on the Project site would be conveyed to the proposed on-site water
quality/retention basin, where the runoff would be allowed to infiltrate into on-site soils. There would
be no runoff from the Project site following site development. As such, the Project has no potential to
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site, and the Project would not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
25
FEMA FIRM Map Number 06029C1825F, which includes the Project site, indicates that the
Project area is in “Zone X”, an area of minimal flooding. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to
impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10)
E. Would the Project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: FEMA FIRM Map Number 06029C1825F, which includes the
Project site, indicates that the Project area is in “Zone X”. Accordingly, the Project site would not be
subject to inundation during peak storm events, and the Project therefore would not risk the release of
pollutants due to flood hazards, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11)
There are no enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water in proximity to the Project site other
than the Beardsley Canal, located approximately 0.3-mile northeast, which would not be subject to
seiches because it is not a large water body. Accordingly, the Project would not risk the release of
pollutants due to inundation from seiches, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11)
The Project site is located approximately 74 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. As such, the
Project site is not subject to inundation due to tsunamis. Accordingly, the Project would not risk the
release of pollutants due to inundation from seiches, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11)
2.2.9 Land Use and Planning
A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There is no reasonable possibility of the Project dividing an
established community. Existing commercial development borders the Project site to the north, vacant
land and SR 99 occur to the east, existing commercial development is located to the south of the Project
site, and Knudsen Drive and existing public facility uses are located to the west of the Project site.
Residential communities are located to the west of the Project site at a distance. The residential
communities are separated from the Project site by Knudsen Drive and existing public facility land
uses. Because the Project site is already physically separated from developed residential properties
under existing conditions, development of the Project site as proposed would not physically divide any
established residential community. (DEIR, p. 4.10-5)
The Project would connect to the existing roadway system and other infrastructure and would
not involve the reconfiguration of streets that could have the potential to alter the surrounding pattern
of future development and affect the connectivity of existing residential uses located to the west of the
Project site and west of Knudsen Drive. (DEIR, p. 4.10-5)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
26
B. Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would not conflict with the AQAPs
SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with the
applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-5)
The Project would not conflict with the adopted goals of the 2022 Regional Transportation
Plan. The proposed Project is a consistent use within the Service Industrial (SI) General Plan land use
designation, and that designation and the Project are consistent with the City’s General Manufacturing
(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. Because the proposed Project is a permitted
land use, is consistent with existing zoning, and has been designed in accordance with all applicable
regulations, the proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict
with the MBGP. The Project would not conflict with any of the specific objectives, polices, or actions
in the General Plan’s Elements that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. (DEIR, p. 4.10-8 to 4.10-9)
2.2.10 Noise
A. Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below evaluate three components of the
Project that would generate noise – the construction process, on-site operational activities, and off-site
traffic.
Construction Noise
Project-related construction noise would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature
and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. The number and mix of
construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading,
building construction, paving, architectural coating. (DEIR, p. 4.11-15)
Project-related construction noise levels are expected to range from 48.0 to 60.7 dBA Leq, at
the nearby receiver locations. To evaluate whether the proposed Project would generate potentially
significant short-term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime
noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction
noise level impacts. The nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq
significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
27
Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations. (DEIR, p. 4.11-
15)
On-Site Operational Noise
The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include but not be limited to: outdoor
loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, emergency generator, trash enclosure activity,
parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements. (DEIR, p. 4.11-16)
The operational noise levels associated with the proposed Project would satisfy the City of
Bakersfield daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards. Therefore, the operational noise
impacts would be less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. The Project
would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA Leq at the nearest
receiver locations. The Project would generate nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from
0.0 to 1.0 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Because the Project-related operational noise level
increases would not exceed the operational noise level increase significance criteria, the increases at
the sensitive receiver locations would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-18)
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic generated by the proposed Project is
provided for information purposes only in order to fully analyze all of the existing traffic scenarios
identified in the Project’s Traffic Study. With the addition of Project traffic to existing traffic levels,
Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL on the study area
roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, existing noise sensitive
land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience noise level increases that are
below the identified thresholds of significance. As such, Project-related traffic noise impacts under
Existing with Project conditions would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-20)
The Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL under
2024 traffic conditions. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent
to the study area roadway segments would experience noise level increases due to Project-related
traffic noise levels that are below the identified thresholds of significance under 2042 traffic conditions.
As such, Project-related traffic noise impacts under 2042 traffic conditions would be less than
significant. (DEIR. p. 4.11-21)
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 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
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
28
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. (FEIR, p. F-134)
B. Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: At distances ranging from 557 to 1,307 feet from Project
construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.002
in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the
typical Project construction vibration levels would fall below the building damage thresholds at all the
noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less
than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.11-22)
C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The closest airport to the Project site is the Meadows Field Airport
located approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the Project site. According to the Kern County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area,
but located well outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundary of the airport. According
to the ALUCP, the Project medical outpatient commercial land use is considered normally acceptable
with exterior noise levels of 55-60 dBA CNEL, and any noise form the airport plus ambient noise
levels will be below this range. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(DEIR, p. 4.11-22)
2.2.11 Transportation
A. Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Threshold
“a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The improvements associated with the Project’s construction are
fully consistent with all goals and policies of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, as well as
the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 4.12-5)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
29
As indicated in the Project’s TIA, all roadway segments within the scope of the study currently
operate at or above LOS C and are expected to continue to do so through the year 2042, both with and
without the Project. The intersections Knudsen Drive & Olive Drive and Mohawk Street & Hageman
Road operate below an acceptable level of service, prior to the addition of the Project traffic. With the
addition of the planned but not yet constructed Hageman Flyover, which is projected to be completed
by 2042, the intersection of Knudsen Drive & Olive Drive is projected to operate at an acceptable level
of service in the year 2042 with or without the addition of Project traffic. The intersection of Hageman
Road and Mohawk Street will continue to operate below an acceptable level of service, with the Project
contributing 0.8 seconds of delay in the morning peak hour and 2.3 seconds of delay in the evening
peak hour, which is less than significant according to Section 6.2.2.7 of the City’s Transportation
Design Manual. For these reasons, the Project is fully consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element policies related to streets and roadways. (DEIR, p. 4.12-5)
Existing bus stops in the area are adequate for this existing route, and no new bus stops are
required along the Project site’s frontage with Knudsen Drive. The Project would not conflict with any
of the goals or policies identified in the General Plan Circulation Element related to transit. (DEIR, pp.
4.12-5 to 4.12-6)
According to the City of Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan, Hageman Road has a
designated Class 2 Bike Lane and Knudsen Drive is planned to have a Class 2 Bike Lane (Bakersfield,
2013). These designations also are consistent with the Kern County 2012 Bicycle Master Plan. Class
2 bike lanes are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for
exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities on either side of a roadway.
As part of the Project’s roadway frontage improvements with Knudsen Drive, right-of-way will be
provided for a Class 2 bike lane, would be in full compliance with the City of Bakersfield “Bicycle &
Pedestrian Safety Plan.” Accordingly, the Project would be fully consistent with the General Plan
Circulation Element goals and policies related to bikeways. (DEIR, p. 4.12-6)
The Project would not conflict with any of the goals or policies included in the General Plan
Circulation Element related to parking. The Project is required to accommodate a total of 214 vehicle
parking spaces, which the Project as proposed will accommodate. (DEIR, p. 4.12-6)
The Project site is located approximately 0.9-mile southwest of the Meadows Field Airport.
The Project site is located inside of Compatibility Zone “C” for the Meadows Field Airport.
Compatibility Zone “C” includes areas in the common traffic pattern of the airport that are at limited
risk for impacts. These areas may have frequent noise intrusion; however, the Project site is located
outside of the noise contours of the airport. The Project would be implemented in accordance with the
ALUCP restricting occupancy of the site to no more than 150 persons per acre, and would not conflict
with the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies related to airports. (DEIR, p. 4.12-6)
With respect to the City’s Municipal Code, the Project would be required to comply with all
applicable provisions of Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic). Specifically, the Project
Applicant would be required to contribute transportation impact fees pursuant to Chapter 15.84 of the
City’s Municipal Code (Transportation Impact Fee) to help provide for acceptable LOS within the
City. Project-related roadway improvements also would be required to comply with Chapter 10.12
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
30
(Traffic-Control Devices) of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the City to provide for orderly
and safe traffic conditions within the City and to have installed and maintained such signals and other
devices as may be necessary to effectively carry out such purposes. There are no components of the
proposed Project that would conflict with any of the provisions of Municipal Code Title 10. (DEIR, p.
4.12-6)
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-6)
Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to transportation, the
Project will be required to implement the following regulatory requirements to further minimize the
Project’s less than significant effect.
TRN RR-1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay appropriate
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) fees at the rates then in effect in accordance with Chapter 15.84 of
the City’s Municipal Code.
TRN RR-2. All off-site roadway improvements shall comply with applicable provisions of City
of Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) and Chapter 13.12 (Development
Improvements Standards and Specifications).
B. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: 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, just over 100 miles away in Los Angeles. During the 2021
City hearings relating to the Project, a number of veterans testified that they currently must drive to
Los Angeles for services, but once the Project is operational, will no longer do so. Therefore, VMT
associated with the Project would represent a less-than-significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.12-7)
For informational purposes, the trips generated by the existing VA clinic located on Westwind
Drive were quantified, and it is estimated to generate 1,116 average daily trips (ADTs), 74 a.m. peak
hour trips, and 110 p.m. peak hour trips. This is substantially similar to the projected trips for the
Project, which are estimated to be 1,457 ADTs, 95 a.m. peak hour trips, and 143 p.m. peak hour trips.
The VMT generated by the existing facility is likewise substantially similar to that generated by the
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
31
proposed Project. Thus, the Project essentially steps into the shoes of the existing facility’s impacts,
rather than generating truly “new” impacts on the environment relating to transportation. (DEIR, pp.
4.12-7 to 4.12-8) However, the City and the EIR are not relying on this “netting out” when disclosing,
analyzing and mitigating the Project’s impacts.
C. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: All of the proposed roadway improvements would be implemented
in a manner consistent with Chapter 13.12 (Development Improvements Standards and Specifications)
of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires compliance with a number of standard manuals. The
purposes of Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 are intended to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City by establishing standards and specifications related to a number of
public improvements, including roadway improvements. Additionally, the Project’s proposed
improvements have been reviewed by the City for compliance with the provisions of Chapter 13.12,
and have determined that the Project’s proposed improvements are in full compliance with the City’s
requirements as well as Municipal Code Chapter 13.12. Accordingly, the Project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, and impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-8)
D. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: During construction of the proposed Project, Project construction
contractors would be required to maintain adequate emergency access routes on site. Additionally, the
Project’s plans have been reviewed by the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), which has determined
that the Project’s design would provide for adequate access for emergency vehicles under long-term
operations. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to the requirements of Section 15.65.190
(Appendix D, Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates – Amended), which identifies
requirements associated with emergency access. Accordingly, the Project would not result in
inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-8)
2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a
Level of Less than Significant
The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the
EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts
to a less than significant level, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). The potentially significant
impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as
follows:
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
32
2.3.1 Biological Resources
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Based on the field survey, none of the 9 special-status plant species
that have been documented as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Project site have the potential
to occur within the Project site based on habitat, soils, topography, previously documented occurrence
of the species, and the extremely disturbed conditions found on the Project site. Therefore, there is no
potential for the Project to cause direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species. (DEIR, p.
4.3-7)
Although no Crotch’s bumble bees were observed during the site visit in 2022, the survey was
conducted during an inactive period for the Crotch’s bumble bee. Another survey was conducted on
May 26, 2023; however, no Crotch’s bumble bees were observed. Potential habitat for the Crotch’s
bumble bee, including small mammal burrows and annual grassland, are present on the site. Because
potential foraging and nesting habitat could be present on the site, there is potential for Crotch’s bumble
bee nests to be impacted during Project-related ground disturbance. The potential presence of Crotch’s
bumble bee is therefore considered a significant direct impact and mitigation is required.
Although no burrowing owls or sign of species presence was observed during focused surveys
conducted on the Project site, California ground squirrel burrows, which are frequently used by
burrowing owls for nesting and shelter, were observed. Therefore, the site is likely to support small
mammals that are potential prey items in the diet of burrowing owl. Thus, the Project’s construction
activities could remove potential foraging and potential nesting habitat for burrowing owl. The
potential presence of burrowing owl is considered a significant direct and cumulatively considerable
impact because the species is migratory and could be present on the Project site at the time the Project’s
construction activities commence, and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-8)
The Project site provides suitable denning habitat for SJKF and American badger. Several
suitably sized holes were observed during the survey effort. Impacts to suitable dens could occur;
however, no known SJKF or American badger dens were observed on the Project site. The nearest
historic record of American badger occurred approximately 0.5-mile southeast of the Project site. With
the amount of human foot traffic and trash dumping on the Project site, the site is considered lower
quality habitat then adjacent parcels that experience less disturbance; however, it is not possible to
conclude that SJKF would not visit or occupy the site. Because there is potential for SJKF or American
badger to occupy the Project site, potential direct impacts would be significant and mitigation is
required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-8)
Birds nesting on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site could be disturbed if the
Project’s construction activities occur during the nesting season when active nests are present. If these
nests are disturbed to the extent that eggs are destroyed, young are injured or killed, or adults abandon
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
33
the nests, a violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code could result. Therefore,
potential direct impacts to nesting and migratory birds would be significant and mitigation is required.
(DEIR, p. 4.3-8)
To ensure that Project impacts to special-status wildlife species are mitigated to a level of less
than significant, the following mitigation measures are required.
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 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 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
clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and
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.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
34
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 current biological information in order to implement all avoidance and minimization
measures that are required based on any previous observations of special-status species and
to update observations shall any new site occupation by special-status species occur. If any
known San Joaquin kit fox dens are detected, implementation of the most recent USFWS
protocols (Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit
Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011)) is required per BIO MM-5 unless
protocols are issued by either CDFW or USFWS that supersede these protocols. If American
badger is present, BIO MM-5 shall apply.
BIO MM-5. 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
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
35
killed due to Project-related activities, the CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) shall be
contacted for further guidance. Should either agency determine that incidental take
authorization is required prior to construction, the appropriate CESA/FESA authorization
shall be obtained by the Project Applicant. CESA and FESA authorizations shall include
measures addressing the respective state and/or federal listed species and shall include the
following at a minimum:
a) Implementation of standardized biological resource protective measures
included in BIO MM-4;
b) Biological preconstruction surveys conducted by qualified biologists approved
by each applicable agency no more than 30 days prior to conducting work on
the Project site;
c) If any known San Joaquin kit fox dens are detected, implementation of the most
recent USFWS protocols (Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the
Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance
(2011)) unless protocols are issued by either CDFW or USFWS that supersede
these protocols.
d) Destruction of San Joaquin kit fox dens shall follow the monitoring and
excavation procedures in USFWS (2011).
e) If CBB individuals or nests are detected during any surveys conducted per BIO
MM-3, and the CBB remains a state candidate species or is listed under CESA,
the Project Applicant shall obtain take authorization from CDFW prior to
vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance. A CBB Mortality Reduction
Plan shall be submitted for CDFW approval no less than 30 days prior to initial
vegetation removal or ground disturbance and the Plan shall contain the
following information at a minimum:
o Active CBB nests shall be avoided by 50 feet. If CBB nests cannot be
avoided, the Plan shall include seasonal restrictions for disturbance
within 50 feet of any nest and procedures for determining when nest
impacts will be minimized.
o Vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance shall be limited to the
period when impacts to individual CBB that may be underground will
be minimized (e.g., after nests have become inactive).
o Prior to vegetation removal/initial ground disturbance, small mammal
burrows that may harbor overwintering CBB queens shall be
excavated by hand. The Plan shall include timing and excavation
methods. In addition, the Plan shall include procedures for handling
and disposition of CBB if encountered during burrow excavations.
o The Plan shall include procedures for handling and disposition of
individual CBB if they are encountered in the work limits or on
construction equipment during construction activities.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
36
f) Biological monitoring of initial ground disturbance during each phase of
grading;
g) Provision for compliance reporting to be provided to each agency as required
in respective take authorizations;
h) Compensation for habitat disturbance acceptable to CDFW (state listed
species) and/or USFWS (federal listed species) at a ratio of no less than 3:1
for permanent impacts and 1.1:1 for temporary impacts to listed species
habitat. The only existing approved conservation bank for impacts to San
Joaquin kit fox habitat in Kern County is the Kern Water Bank Authority
Conservation Bank. Lands used to mitigate for San Joaquin kit fox must be
contiguous with other potentially occupied lands, provide suitable foraging
and denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox, and be located in the southern San
Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County below 1,500’ in elevation;
i) Compensation land shall be funded for maintenance, protection, and
management through establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as
an endowment. The endowment must be a non-wasting account that is
acceptable to both CDFW and USFWS.
BIO MM-6. All biological monitors working on the Project site shall be required by their
contract to notify the USFWS and CDFW of the discovery of any protected species identified
on the site other that nesting birds, Crotch bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox and American
badger which are addressed by BIO MM-1, BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3, BIO MM-4, and BIO MM-
5. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.
BIO MM-7 The Project Applicant shall ensure that the Project’s construction contractors
adhere to the following best management practices. Construction contractors shall be required
by their contracts to comply with these best practices and permit periodic inspection of the
construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that
requires compliance is required on all grading and building plans approved by the City of
Bakersfield.
a) Traffic restraints and signs shall be established to minimize temporary disturbances during
construction beyond the construction site boundaries. All construction traffic shall be
restricted to designated access roads and routes, Project site, storage areas, and staging and
parking areas. Off-road traffic outside designated Project boundaries shall be prohibited. A
15 mile-per-hour (24 kilometer-per-hour) speed limit shall be observed in all Project
construction areas, except as otherwise posted on county roads and state and federal highways.
b) All construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing construction activities shall attend a
worker orientation program. The worker orientation program shall present measures required
to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological resources and shall include, at a
minimum, the following subjects: A summary of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA),
California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA);
biological survey results for the current construction area; life history information for the
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
37
species of concern; biological resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements;
consequences for failure to successfully implement requirements; and procedures to be
followed if dead or injured wildlife are located during Project activities. Upon completion of
the orientation, employees shall sign a form stating that they attended the program and
understand all biological resource mitigation measures. Forms verifying worker attendance
shall be filed at the Project Applicant’s office and be accessible to the City of Bakersfield,
USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel shall be allowed to work onsite with the
exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under the supervision
of a trained employee.
c) All equipment storage and parking during construction activities shall be confined to the
designated construction area or to previously disturbed offsite areas that are not habitat for
listed species.
d) All Project construction activities involving initial surface disturbance shall occur during
daylight hours.
e) Trenches shall be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to the onset of
construction. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for
entrapped animals. Any wildlife so discovered shall be allowed to escape voluntarily, without
harassment, before construction activities resume. A professional biologist may remove
wildlife from a trench, hole or other entrapment out of harm’s way if the immediate welfare of
the individual is in jeopardy. State or federal listed species may not be handled. Should any
state or federal listed species become entrapped, CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted as
appropriate.
f) All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by
Project construction activities shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least
once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be prohibited.
g) To prevent harassment of special-status species, construction personnel shall not be allowed
to have firearms or pets on the Project site.
h) All equipment and work-related materials shall be contained in closed containers either in the
work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g. rags, hose, etc.) shall be stored within closed
containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the work site.
i) All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids shall not be
left unattended until clean-up has been completed.
j) Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the Project shall be prohibited unless approved by the
USFWS and the CDFW. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of
special-status species using adjacent habitats, and to avoid the depletion of prey upon which
they depend. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of its
proven lower risk to SJKF.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
38
k) Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife
dead, injured, or entrapped on the Project site, shall be required to report the incident
immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental
inspector, etc.).
l) In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed species, escape ramps or structures shall be
installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject wildlife to escape unimpeded.
m) In the case of injured special-status wildlife, the CDFW shall be notified immediately. During
business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non-
business hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification shall include the date, time, location,
and circumstances of the incident. Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the
injured animal shall be followed by the contractor onsite.
n) In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the
CDFW shall be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person, and shall
document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of any such
wildlife. Notification shall include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident.
o) Prior to commencement of construction, work areas not adjacent to public streets shall be
clearly marked with fencing, stakes with rope or cord, or other means of delineating the work
area boundaries.
p) If any suspected federally or State protected plant or animal species is found to be present
during Project-related construction activities, occupied areas shall be avoided and the
construction contractor shall be required by its contract to call a CDFW-approved biologist
to the site to identify the species. If the species is protected, the qualified biologist shall notify
the USFWS and CDFW of any previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected
wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.
With implementation of BIO MM-1, BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3, BIO MM-4, BIO MM-5, BIO
MM-6, and BIO MM-7, the Project’s potential impacts Crotch bumble bee, burrowing owl, SJKF, and
American badger, and all other potential impacts on biological resources, would be reduced to less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-17)
2.3.2 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: No historical resources were identified on the Project site with
either the SSJVIC records search or during the field survey. Therefore, because no historical resources
exist on the surface of the Project site, implementation of the Project has no potential to result in a
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
39
substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
However, it is possible (although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) historical resources
may be present beneath the site’s subsurface, and may be unearthed by ground-disturbing activities
associated with Project construction. If any historical resources are unearthed during Project
construction that meet the definition of a significant historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those
resources would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-7)
To ensure that Project impacts to any significant archaeological resources that may be
encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction are mitigated to
a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required.
CR MM-1. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving
ground-disturbing construction activities, a construction worker cultural awareness training
program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at
the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources
specialist that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.
Workers attending the training shall sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant
and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon request.
CR MM-2. If suspected historical or archaeological resources are encountered during ground
disturbance activities, the construction contractor(s) shall be required by their contract to
immediately cease work within 100 feet of the resources and have the area partitioned off until
a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the resources found and make
recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially
significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. If cultural resources
are discovered that may have relevance to Native Americans, the specialist or Project
Applicant must provide written notice to the City of Bakersfield, Tejon Indian Tribe, Native
American Heritage Commission, and any other appropriate individuals, agencies, and/or
groups as determined by the specialist in consultation with the City of Bakersfield to receive
input regarding treatment and disposition of the resource, which may include avoidance,
testing, and/or excavation to prevent destruction of the resource and/or to allow documentation
of the resource for research potential. All reports, correspondence, and determinations
regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information
System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University
Bakersfield.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) CR MM-1 and CR-MM-2 would ensure the
proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be
encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With
implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to important archaeological
resources would be reduced to less than significant. Cumulatively-considerable impacts would likewise
be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-11)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
40
B. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Based on the cultural records search and pedestrian survey of the
Project site, no known archaeological resources are present on the Project site. Additionally, no Native
American tribes requested consultation regarding the Project. Because no archaeological resources are
known to exist on the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. However, it is
possible (although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) that previously undiscovered
archaeological resources may be present beneath the site’s subsurface, and may be impacted by ground-
disturbing activities associated with Project construction. If any prehistoric cultural resources are
unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities,
impacts to those prehistoric cultural resources would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-8)
C. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal
cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the site. A field survey conducted on the Project
site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist
beneath the surface of the site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be
unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.4-
8)
If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would
be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of
Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the
County Coroner must be contacted and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a
Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is
required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives
notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is
required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased
Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her
authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and
may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment
or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The
descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment
within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section
5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
41
descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal
remains, and items associated with Native American burials. Notwithstanding the requirements of
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, due to
the potential (although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) to discover buried human
remains during Project construction activities (i.e., grading), a potentially significant impact would
occur and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-8 to 4.4-9)
To ensure that the Project’s potential impacts to buried human remains are mitigated to a level
of less than significant, the following mitigation measure is required.
CR MM-3. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance
shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific
protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage
Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources
Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human
remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall
guide Native American consultation. Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial
of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall
not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The
coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section
6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information
related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government
Code Section 6254 (r).
In the event that human remains are discovered during construction activities, Mitigation
Measure CR MM-3 would require compliance with the applicable provisions of California Health and
Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq. Mandatory compliance
with Mitigation Measure CR MM-3, State law, and applicable regulatory requirements would reduce
the Project’s potential impacts to buried human remains to less-than-significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.4-
11)
2.3.3 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? (Threshold “f”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any known unique geologic
features. The Project area has a very low potential for containing important fossil remains because the
area is underlain by alluvial deposits that are too young to contain significant fossil remains. However,
the possibility exists in the area that older fossiliferous alluvium may be present six feet below the
surface since the remains of Pleistocene (ice age) land animals have been collected from older alluvial
deposits in Kern County. If excavations penetrate below six (6) feet, there is a “low to moderate
potential” for the discovery of fossils. A “low to moderate potential” indicates that grading operations
may expose fossils during development. These activities could destroy any fossils present. The
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
42
destruction of such fossils could adversely impact the region’s paleontological resources. Therefore, if
any unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature are unearthed during the
Project’s construction activities and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts
would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-11)
To ensure that the Project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated to a
level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are
required.
GEO MM-1. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving
ground-disturbing construction activities, a construction worker paleontological resource
awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week
of employment at the project site, if their work will involve ground-disturbing construction
activities greater than six feet in depth in older alluvium soils. The training shall be prepared
and conducted by a qualified professional paleontologist. Workers attending the training shall
sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and made available to the City of
Bakersfield upon request.
GEO MM-2. If paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall halt until a qualified paleontologist can be called to the site to evaluate the
resources and make recommendations. Paleontological resource materials may include
fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks that have been preserved in rock. If the qualified
paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant
paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to
mitigate adverse impacts to less than significant levels. Construction within 100 feet of the
resources found shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented
or the materials are determined to be to be less than significant by the paleontologist.
GEO MM-3. Recovered specimens, if any, shall be properly prepared to a point of
identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover
small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into
a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival
conservation and permanent retrievable storages shall be required for discoveries of
significance as determined by the paleontologist.
GEO MM-4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be
prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to
accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the
City of Bakersfield prior to final building inspection.
GEO RR-5. In compliance with City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.05, California
Building Code, construction of the Project is required to adhere to the California Building
Standards Code and its requirement to prepare and adhere to site-specific recommendations
contained in a geotechnical report prepared for the Project site. As such, compliance with the
recommendations provided in the Project’s geotechnical study prepared by Krazan &
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
43
Associates, Inc. and dated May 6, 2019 (contained as Technical Appendix E to this EIR) is
required.
GEO RR-6. To address wind erosion, the Project construction activities are required to comply
with the provisions of Chapter 15 Section 104.12 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure
that dust abatement measures comply with the current standards set for by the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
GEO RR-7. The Project Applicant is required, pursuant to the State Water Resources Control
Board, to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for
construction activities (NPDES permit). Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP
will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that construction contractors will be
required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution –
including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately
treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs
that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers,
geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-
seeding.
Mitigation Measures GEO MM-1, GEO MM-2, GEO MM-3, and GEO-MM-4 would ensure
the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be
encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed
Project. Therefore, with implementation of GEO MM-1, GEO MM-2, GEO MM-3, and GEO-MM-4,
the Project’s potential direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-15)
2.3.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is (Threshold “a”):
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
44
Facts in Support of Finding: No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were
identified on the Project site that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historic Places. No resources were identified on the Project site that meet any of the criteria to be
eligible for the California Register and no prehistoric resource sites or isolates were found on the
Project site based on the cultural records search and pedestrian survey of the Project site. Furthermore,
no substantial evidence was presented to or found by the City of Bakersfield that led to the
identification of any resources on the Project site that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be
considered a tribal cultural resource. (DEIR, p. 4.13-3)
Because no tribal cultural resources exist on the Project site under existing conditions,
implementation of the proposed Project would not impact such resources. However, it is possible
(although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) that previously undiscovered tribal cultural
resources may be present beneath the site’s subsurface, and may be impacted by ground-disturbing
activities associated with Project construction. If any tribal cultural resources are unearthed during
Project construction that meet the definition of a significant tribal cultural resource and are
disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those tribal cultural resources would
be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-3)
To ensure proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural
resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project
development, CR MM-1 through CR MM-3, previously noted herein, are required.
Implementation of CR MM-1 through CR-MM 3 would ensure the proper identification and
subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during
ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required
mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to
less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-4)
2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined
herein and in the EIR, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot
be fully mitigated to a less than significant level by any feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(2) and (a)(3), which are infeasible as a result of specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other considerations, or are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency, including the federal government, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
therefore included herein. For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the
City Council finds and declares, in its independent judgment, that the Project’s significant benefits
substantially outweigh and justify the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
2.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
45
Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Bakersfield is using a highly conservative net-zero
threshold for this Project, meaning that any amount of GHG emissions from the Project is considered
a significant impact. Because the Project would result in a total gross increase of 946.85 MT CO2e
annually, or when taking into account the VA’s vacation of its existing facility to move to the new
proposed facility on the Project site, an estimated net new increase of 83.15 MT CO2e annually, the
Project’s impact is significant on a cumulatively-considerable basis. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-18 to 4.7-19)
The following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are required to reduce the
Project-related GHG emissions.
GHG MM-1. Construction contractors shall assure that construction equipment greater than
150 horsepower achieves or is equivalent to or better than Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 emissions standards, or Tier 3 standards
if Tier 4 equipment is not available at the time of construction. Prior to grading and building
permit issuance, the construction contractor(s) shall submit an equipment list to the City’s
Development Services Director confirming that the equipment used is compliant.
GHG MM-2. Construction contractors shall assure that hand tools, forklifts, and pressure
washers used for construction are electric-powered and shall designate an area of the
construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge. The
City of Bakersfield shall verify the location of the designated charging area in association with
grading and building permit issuance.
GHG MM-3. Project construction contractors shall tune and maintain all construction
equipment in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s recommended maintenance
schedule and specifications. Maintenance records for all pieces of equipment shall be kept on-
site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic
inspection by City of Bakersfield or its designee.
GHG MM-4. 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.
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.
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 an extremely conservative net-zero
threshold. While the foregoing measures all reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to the maximum
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
46
extent feasible, unless the VA approves the rooftop solar imposed by Mitigation Measure GHG-4, the
Project would still not achieve net-zero emissions. The City cannot force the VA to approve rooftop
solar, and therefore the City must assume it will not be implemented for the purpose of disclosing,
analyzing and mitigating impacts. Because the Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions
as compared to existing conditions even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s
impacts due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a cumulatively-considerable
basis. (DEIR, p. 4.7-22) It bears noting that the Project’s GHG impacts would be considered less than
significant under virtually any other numerical threshold relied on by many lead agencies throughout
the state, as described in more detail in the FEIR’s response to comments.
2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the
Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that
would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.2(c)). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a
large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project
would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which
irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed
consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy). (DEIR,
p. 5-1)
Determining whether the proposed Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes
requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in
such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of
construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project,
but development of the Project site as proposed would have no measurable adverse effect on the
availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., fossil fuels).
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources
of non-renewable energy and with respect to operation, the Project would replace an existing clinic of
similar size, essentially stepping into the shoes of its existing impacts, including energy use.
Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen), compliance with which reduces a building operation’s energy volume that is
produced by fossil fuels. The Project would be subject to regulations to reduce the Project’s reliance
on non-renewable energy sources. The Project also would be subject to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, which contains provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and availability
of renewable energy. The Project also would be subject to California Energy Code, or Title 24, which
contains measures to reduce natural gas and electrical demand, thus requiring less non-renewable
energy resources. Further, because the Project is contracted with the federal government, the following
items are required to be implemented:
• Reduction in energy cost by 30% over baseline performance rating using the following:
o Energy efficient mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment.
o Energy control strategies for HVAC, plumbing and lighting systems.
o Low flow plumbing fixtures and shower heads.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
47
• Natural gas is boilers over No. 2 Oil where uninterrupted natural gas supply is available.
The Project would avoid the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy during
Project construction, operation, and maintenance. With mandatory compliance to the energy efficiency
regulations as well as implementation of Project design features and mitigation measures, the Project
would not involve the use of large sums or sources of non-renewable energy. A more detailed
discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy. (DEIR, pp. 5-1
to 5-2)
EIR Subsection 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s
potential to transport or handle hazardous materials and biomedical waste which, if released into the
environment, could result in irreversible damage. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with
federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors
working on the property. Similarly, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to
hazardous materials and biomedical waste would be required of the U.S Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) as the operator of the proposed VA community-based outpatient medical clinic. As such,
construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause
significant irreversible damage to the environment, including damage that may result from upset or
accident conditions. (DEIR, p. 5-2)
2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project would be growth inducing. The
CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population
growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential
developments represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect
of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. (DEIR,
p. 5-2)
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional
goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or
removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environments where
population or employment growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets
responding to the new population of residents or employees. The Project’s temporary construction-
related employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in
employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs would be marginal,
accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and highly unlikely to result in any new
physical impacts to the environment as the construction workers are likely to already be in the local
employment pool and would not be coming from out of the region. Operation of the proposed VA
community-based outpatient medical clinic, which is already operating in the area at 1801 Westwind
Drive, also would not increase the need for secondary goods and services, because the VA would
provide medical services in the same geographic market that it already serves. A change in location of
the VA’s services from 1801 Westwind Drive to the Project site would not induce substantial new
growth in the region. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
48
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of
significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered
significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent
master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Kern
County Association of Governments (Kern COG). Significant growth impacts also could occur if a
project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently
permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered
a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public
services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in
some other way. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
According to the growth trends included in Kern COGs RTP/SCS, Metropolitan Bakersfield’s
population is projected to grow by 6,643 residents between 2020 and 2046 (approximately 1.0% annual
growth). Over this same time period, employment in Metropolitan Bakersfield is expected to add 1,077
new jobs (approximately 0.5% annual job growth). Economic growth is not reasonably expected to
take place as a result of the Project’s operation because the VA is already operating a medical clinic in
the local area, and the VA would move those services to the Project site. The move of a medical service
provider in the same geographic market has no reasonable possibility of causing a substantial increase
in population or economic growth. The purpose of the proposed VA community-based outpatient clinic
is to serve existing U.S. military veterans living in the Bakersfield area. Accordingly, because it is
anticipated that most of the VA clinic’s employees and patients would already be living in the
Bakersfield area, the relocation of the VA medical clinic to a new location at the Project site would not
induce substantial growth in the area. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
The area immediately surrounding the Project site contains a variety of uses, including vacant parcels,
and parcels developed with commercial, industrial, public facilities, and school uses. Development of
the Project site is not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because
these areas are already built-out or are planned for future development, which has no reasonable
possibility of being accelerated by the introduction of a VA community-based outpatient medical clinic
on the Project site. Furthermore, the proposed Project’s improvements to the public infrastructure,
including roads, drainage infrastructure, and other utility improvements are consistent with the City’s
General Plan and would not indirectly induce substantial and unplanned population growth in the local
area. (DEIR, pp. 5-3 to 5-4)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growth-inducing
impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
2.7 Project Alternatives
The EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives
for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting
the majority of the Project’s objectives.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
49
2.7.1 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis
A. Alternative Sites
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR. However,
if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then an alternative
sites analysis should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or
exclude an analysis of an alternative site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of
the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project
in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects
of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(f)(2)).
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs established the following geographic boundary as an
acceptable area for establishment of a new clinic:
• Bounded on the North (from west): East on Olive Drive, southeast on Roberts Lane, southeast
on Manor Street and then northeast on Panorama Drive to Fairfax Road.
• Bounded on the South (from east): West on E. White Lane which becomes White Lane, to
intersection with Gosford Road.
• Bounded on the West (from south): Starting at the intersection of Gosford Road and White
Lane, head north to where Gosford Road becomes Coffee Road, continue north to Olive Drive.
• Bounded on the East (from north): South on Fairfax Road to E. Brundage Lane, west on E.
Brundage Lane and then south on Cottonwood Road to E. White Lane. (DEIR, p. 6-3)
On December 9, 2019, the VA issued a Solicitation for Offers for “up to a 20-year lease for 30,100 Net
Usable Square Feet of space for use by VA for personnel, furnishings, and equipment to be operated
as a Community Based Outpatient Clinic” in the geographic area described above. The VA received
four proposals, for the following three locations:
• Renovation of the existing VA clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive (two proposals).
• A new clinic proposed by the existing landlord of the VA Clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive
(referred to as PBV, or Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC), at an undisclosed location
• The Project site evaluated in this EIR. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
The VA evaluated the four proposals and selected the Project site. 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. (DEIR, pp. 6-4 to 6-5) Since that time additional protests have
been filed by PBV. On May 6, 2021, PBV protested the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) challenging VA’s award of the lease to the Project Applicant (SASD), and on May 24, 2021,
PBV filed a supplemental protest with GAO. Both of these protests were dismissed and denied by
GAO on August 11, 2021. On November 8, 2021, PBV effectively appealed GAO’s August 11, 2021
decision by filing a protest with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) challenging VA’s award to
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
50
the Project Applicant (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. The COFC
dismissed and denied PBV’s November 8, 2021 protest on March 11, 2022. On May 10, 2022, PBV
filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit challenging one aspect of the COFC’s March 11, 2022
ruling. On 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.
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. (DEIR, p. 6-5)
Furthermore, even completing 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”]).
2.7.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR
A. 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. (DEIR, p. 6-6)
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in no physical environmental
impacts to the Project site beyond those that have historically occurred on the Project site and that will
continue to occur into the future from routine activities. Almost all effects of the proposed Project
would be avoided or lessened by selection of the No Project Alternative, with the exception of long-
term erosion and sedimentation impacts, which would be increased under this alternative. The
foregoing does not take into account the fact that under the No Project Alternative, the existing VA
clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive would continue to operate indefinitely, and as a result, while avoiding
construction period and Project site-specific impacts, the No Project Alternative would have
substantially similar operational impacts to the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative, however,
would fail to meet any of the Project’s objectives. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would not
result in the establishment of a new VA community-based outpatient clinic, provide high quality
patient care for veterans, enable veterans to receive healthcare at an easily accessible facility, provide
a diverse range of consolidated outpatient services, or provide community vitality, economic growth
and employment opportunities in Bakersfield. The VA itself has already determined that the existing
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
51
facility at 1801 Westwind Drive is inadequate; it is outdated and does not provide the full suite of
services needed by the City’s veterans, who are instead currently forced to travel outside the
Bakersfield area to obtain these services. Many local veterans testified that the existing facility is
inadequate and substandard during the City’s 2021 hearings on the Project, confirmed they drive over
100 miles to Los Angeles for needed services, and others have submitted written comments and even
articles in media stating the same. As mentioned above, the VA has also already specifically rejected
a proposal to remodel the existing clinic or otherwise keep the existing clinic at the existing location.
(DEIR, p. 6-11)
B. Net Zero Alternative
The Net Zero Alternative considers the development of a VA clinic on the Project site with a
design that would achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this result, a smaller sized
clinic than proposed by the Project and required by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would be
required, which does not meet the requirements of the request for proposals issued by the VA. The Net
Zero Alternative 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.), which would have a net usable
square footage well below 30,100 s.f. The number of parking spaces also would be concomitantly
reduced by approximately 9%. Areas not developed with the building or parking would be landscaped.
Under this alternative, the exiting clinic would no longer operate and the 36,000 s.f. new clinic built
on the Project site would operate in place of the existing VA clinic and would achieve net zero
greenhouse gas emissions. (DEIR, p. 6-11)
The Net Zero Alternative would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively-
considerable GHG impacts to a less than significant level. The Net Zero Alternative would also
moderately reduce the Project’s already less than significant impacts to air quality, energy, and noise.
All other impacts from the Net Zero Alternative would be similar to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-15)
The Net Zero Alternative would not meet Project Objective B because it does not meet the
VA’s physical design requirements and would not meet Project Objective G due to not utilizing all the
available space on the Project site to construct a larger building which would achieve operational
efficiency and create optimal space for increased patient and staff satisfaction. Additionally, the Net
Zero Alternative would not offer the full suite of services needed by veterans in the Bakersfield area.
The Net Zero Alternative would generally meet all of the Project’s other objectives, but to a less extent.
The feasibility of selecting this Alternative is outside of the jurisdictional authority of the City of
Bakersfield because the physical characteristics of a feasible Project are determined by the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA). Modifications to the Project by the City of Bakersfield 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 select this Alternative because it would conflict with the Project
approved by the VA / federal government. Further, approval of the smaller Net Zero Alternative would
likely result in some veterans traveling out of town, including to VA facilities in Los Angeles, to
receive timely services, which would then increase air quality, GHG and transportation impacts,
thereby negating the impact reductions associated with constructing and operating a smaller facility.
(DEIR, p. 6-15) The Net Zero alternative is rejected for this second reason on an independent basis, in
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
52
addition to the lack of feasibility of reducing the size of, and services offered by, the Project contrary
to the bid specifications issued by the VA. Each of these reasons, standing alone, are sufficient grounds
for rejecting this Alternative.
C. Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative
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. Under this Alternative, the exiting VA clinic located at 1801
Westwind Drive would no longer operate and the Alternative would achieve a net reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions compared to the existing condition. The total amount of energy needed to
offset the Project is approximately 371,171 kWh/year. The building itself is expected to need 341,211
kWh/year, and the remaining 29,960 kWh/year is for the parking lot operations. These values are based
on the mitigated electricity needs, which assumes a 10% improvement over Title 24 requirements.
Assuming that 1 kW of rooftop solar in Bakersfield can generate about 1,650 kWh/year, solar panels
capable of producing a total of 225 kW (207 kW for the building and 18 kW for the parking lot) would
be required. Assuming that approximately 100 square feet (sq. ft.) of surface area are needed to hold
1kW of rooftop solar, 22,500 sq. ft. of solar panel coverage would be required on the site. (DEIR, p.
6-16)
The Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative would reduce the Project’s
significant and unavoidable cumulatively-considerable GHG impacts to a less than significant level.
The Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative would also incrementally reduce the
Project’s already less than significant impacts to air quality and energy. Potential hazardous materials
impacts would increase due to the introduction of on-site battery storage, but the potential impacts
would be less than significant with mandatory regulatory compliance. All other impacts from the Net
Zero Alternative would be similar to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-20)
The Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative would meet the Project Objectives
except for Objective B because it does not meet the VA’s physical design requirements, and therefore
could be rejected by the VA (which would have to fund any increased costs resulting from the
Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative, which could be significant). The feasibility of
selecting this Alternative is outside of the jurisdictional authority of the City of Bakersfield because
the physical characteristics of a feasible Project are determined by the VA. Modifications to the Project
by the City of Bakersfield 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 select this Alternative
because it would conflict with the Project approved by the VA / federal government. (DEIR, p. 6-20)
However, it bears noting that GHG MM-4 essentially requires Renewable Energy System Project
Design Alternative, if approved by the VA.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
53
2.7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires the identification of the environmentally superior
alternative. As discussed in the DEIR, implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in
no physical environmental impacts beyond those that have historically occurred on the property, and
those that occur from the operation of the existing VA clinic at 1801 Westwind Drive. Because the No
Project Alternative would avoid most of the Project’s impacts, it warrants consideration as the
“environmentally superior alternative.” However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2), if a
no project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Accordingly, the Net
Zero Alternative evaluated herein is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6. If the Net Zero Alternative is determined not feasible, then the
Renewable Energy System Project Design Alternative would become the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. (DEIR, pp. 6-20 to 6-21)
3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Planning Commission hereby declares that it has balanced the benefits of the Project
against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the
Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, if the benefits of the Project outweigh its
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent
feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), and herein, having considered the entire administrative record on the
Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
implementation of all feasible mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that each of the
following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually
outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental
impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
A. The Project provides a much needed new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic
in Bakersfield on a site that has been vetted by and selected by the U.S. Government, which
is highly desired by local veterans.
B. The Project provides a new VA community-based outpatient medical clinic that meets the
VA’s physical design requirements.
C. The Project provides high quality patient care for local veterans in a safe, advanced-care
medical facility throughout the Bakersfield area and surrounding communities.
D. The Project enables 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.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
54
E. The Project provides a 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, which are not all currently available
in the City at the existing location, avoiding the need for veterans to travel out of the
Bakersfield area for these services.
F. The Project creates a comprehensively planned, advanced-care VA medical clinic that
provides community vitality, economic growth, and employment opportunities in the City
of Bakersfield.
G. Upon build-out, the Project provides a VA medical clinic with maximum operational
efficiency to optimize health care outcomes for veterans and create a space for increased
patient and staff satisfaction.
H. The Project enables veterans to receive a full range of services not currently available in
the City, eliminating the need for long-distance driving to Los Angeles for certain services.
I. The Project creates valuable short term construction and long term employment
opportunities for residents of the City.
J. The Project implements the City’s General Plan by developing an underutilized site that is
adjacent to urban infrastructure, with a use consistent with the City’ General Plan and
zoning code.
K. The Project implements Federal and State policy by providing needed health care to a
vulnerable community of veterans.
The Planning Commission hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public
through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The
Planning Commission finds that each of the Project’s benefits separately and individually outweigh all
of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those
impacts to be acceptable.
4.0 Additional Facts on Record
4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Bakersfield hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The City finds that the MMRP
is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation measures) imposed on the Project
to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during Project implementation. The MMRP is on file
with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor,
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022080337
55
4.2 Custodian of Record
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
have been based are located at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, 1715 Chester
Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301. The custodian for these records is Louis Ramirez, Associate
Planner II. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Exhibit C
Location Map
SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 21-0399
(SCH #2022080337)
SARDINIA DRBERGAMODRVIA MARISOL ST
STATE RD
WILSON
AVE
LUCCA
CT
BROOKDALEAVE
CHERRY
GLENCT
PEMBROKE
AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
VIA FONTENELLE DRSARBONNE DR
VARESE
CT ELTEJONAVEVICTOR STARTHUR AVESHELDON DRPEMBROKE AVETALLMANAVE CASTAICAVEWOODROW AVE
MORAGA CT BRANDONWAYRU THERFORDCTLANDCO DRO LIVE TREE CT
CARTER AVE
SANDALWOOD STROSCOMAREST
VENETO ST
BASILICATA DR
EMILIADRPRYOR STAREZZOCT
S
T
A
T
E
R
D
BENEVENTO CTSICILY CT
ATLAS CT
LOMBARDY CT LOGAN STNOMI STHANK RD
LANDCO DRR
O
B
ERTSL
NKNUDSENDR
KNUDSEN DRST
A
T
E
RDVICTOR STOLIVE DR OLIVEDRMOHAWK STHAGEMAN RD 99SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE
BEARDSLEYCANA
L
D
I
T
C
H
B
E
AR
D
SLEYCANAL
San Lauren
Elementary
School
CITY LIMIT CITY LIMITCITY LIMIT
Copyright nearmap 2015
Document Name: 2020_11_10zc
0 300 600
Feet
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
AERIAL
SPR 21-0399
Project Location
SPR 21-0399
~
BAKERSFIELD
t
SPR 21-0399 Page | 3 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
SPR 21-0399
IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
The project is subject to a variety of conditions of approval. These include conditions based on adopted City plans
and policies, those determined through site plan review, those determined through environmental review
essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, and recommended conditions for development that are not essential to health, safety, and welfare,
but would on the whole enhance the project and its relationship to the neighborhood and environment. The
following conditions include specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be
allowed occupancy. In addition, there are informational items included to alert you to specific fees and/or
requirements moving through the development permitting process.
REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED PLAN
Any time after site plan approval but before the approval expires, you may submit revisions to the plan. We will
treat these revisions as a new site plan application subject to a new review and required fees. The Planning
Director can only approve minor changes to the original plan without a new application if they are necessary to
meet a condition, mitigation, or result from physical obstacles or other comparable constraints (See Section
17.08.080.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Site plan approval is based on the statements made in the application and the plans you submitted. Any errors or
omissions on these plans could alter the compliance list and/or void this decision. If you have questions about
any of the items noted in the Conditions of Approval, you must speak to the contact person representing the
department requiring that item.
For conditions that require compliance prior to a building permit, or other permit issuance, provide the
appropriate documentation as evidence of compliance with your building permit submittal.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 4 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to
related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or
property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and
boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands
whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind
whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including
without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions
whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by
the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether
any other permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this
condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion,
shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and
expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by
another entity or party.
2. Project approval is conditioned upon acceptance of the conditions of approval contained herein,
as evidenced by the applicant’s signature on the Acknowledgement and Acceptance portion of
the Conditions of Approval.
3. This site plan expires 2 years from the decision date, unless building permits have been issued, or
where the use has commenced on projects not requiring a building permit. The project must be
completed within 5 years from the decision date. If the property is rezoned, site plan approval
will expire upon the effective date for the rezoning unless the use is permitted in the new zone.
The Planning Director may extend the expiration date up to one (1) year if you resubmit new plans
for check against the code requirements in effect at that time and include a written request for
the extension. We must receive this request before expiration of the project approval. We will
not require a fee for this extension request; however, changes to the plans originally approved for
purposes other than code requirements shall be subject to a new site plan review, including
payment of all required fees (See Section 17.08.080.D of the Zoning Ordinance).
SPR 21-0399 Page | 5 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
4. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner, operator, and/or management to ensure that
any required permits, inspections, and approvals from any regulatory agency be obtained from
the applicable agency prior to issuance of a building permit and/or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(661-326-3720 or DEVBld@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
2. Building permits are required for all construction on site. Submit plans for review and approval
prior to obtaining all required permits for construction of the project.
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff Contact – Mark Fick; 661-326-3790 or mfick@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Prior to review of improvement plans by the City, the developer shall submit a grading plan for
the proposed site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official
(Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.44.010). With the grading plan, if the project is subject to
the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 99-08-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water Resources
Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity. Compliance with
the general permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared,
continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection during normal construction
hours.
2. A grading permit is required prior to final plan approval. The developer shall submit four (4) copies
of grading plans and two (2) copies of the preliminary soils report to the Building Division. A final
soils report shall also be submitted to the Building Division before they can issue a building permit.
Please note that grading plans must be consistent with the final building site plans and landscaping
plans. Building permits will not be issued until the grading permit is approved by the Building
Division, Planning Division (HCP), and Public Works Department.
3. Show on the final building plan pedestrian access from the public way and accessible parking.
Private streets are not the public way.
4. The developer shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building plans for
all exterior walls of any building that is within the distance as set forth in Table 602 of the California
Building Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 6 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. Include with or show on the final building plans information necessary to verify that the project
complies with all accessibility requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Code.
6. The developer shall obtain all required approvals from the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department (2700 “M” Street, Bakersfield, CA., 93301; PH 661-862-8700) for any food
handling facility (i.e.: market, delicatessen, café, concession, restaurant) before building permits
can be issued.
7. Buildings or structures shall require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system where
required by current California Building Code and City ordinance.
8. The Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fee at the
time they issue a building permit.
9. Final Building plans shall show pedestrian access pathways or easements for persons with
disabilities from public rights-of-ways that connect to all accessible buildings, facilities, elements,
and spaces in accordance with the California Building Code. These pedestrian access ways shall
not be parallel to vehicular lanes unless separated by curbs or railings.
10. Prior to granting occupancy, the Building Division will verify that a water meter serving the
development is in place. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer contact the applicable
water purveyor to inquire about their process for obtaining water service for the development as
soon as possible. To determine who the water purveyor for the development is, you may contact
the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA,
phone: 661-326-3715).
11. Show on the final building plan, electric vehicle supply equipment to facilitate future installation
as required by the California Green Code.
12. An acoustical consultant, approved by the Building Division, shall be contacted to prepare and
include with the final building plans measure that mitigate noise exposures for all buildings on the
project site that are subject to noise levels of 65 db or greater as delineated by the CNEL contour
maps of the city. These implementation measures shall comply with the requirements of Title 24
of the California Building Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 7 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
C. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff contact – Louis Ramirez; 661-326-3023 or lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The minimum parking required for this project has been computed based on use and shall be as
follows:
Proposed Square Parking Required
Use Footage Ratio Parking
Medical clinic 39,648 SF 1 space/200 SF 198 spaces
Required Parking: 198 spaces
(Note: There are 214 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. By ordinance, compact and
tandem spaces cannot be counted towards meeting minimum parking requirements. For
commercial development containing a multi-tenant pad, any change in use where 50 percent or
more of the pad requires additional parking pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Section 17.58.110,
the Planning Director may require parking commensurate with the new use.)
2. Minimum parking stall dimensions shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long and shall be designed
according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer. Vehicles may hang over landscape
areas no more than 2-1/2 feet provided required setbacks along street frontages are maintained,
and trees and shrubs are protected from vehicles.
3. All parking lots, driveways, drive aisles, loading areas, and other vehicular access ways, shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other paved street surfacing material in accordance
with the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 and 17.58.060.A.).
4. Lighting is required for all parking lots, except residential lots with four units or less (Section
17.58.060.A.). Illumination shall be evenly distributed across the parking area with light fixtures
designed and arranged so that light is directed downward and is reflected away from adjacent
properties and streets. Use of glare shields or baffles may be required for glare reduction or
control of back light. No light poles, standards and fixtures, including bases or pedestals, shall
exceed a height of 40 feet above grade. However, light standards placed less than 50 feet from
residentially zoned or designated property, or from existing residential development, shall not
exceed a height of 15 feet. The final building plans shall include a picture or diagram of the light
fixtures being used and show how light will be directed onto the parking area.
(Note: Staff can require additional adjustments to installed lighting after occupancy to resolve
glare or other lighting problems if they negatively affect adjacent properties.)
SPR 21-0399 Page | 8 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. The developer shall include a copy of a final landscape plan with each set of the final building plans
submitted to the Building Division. Building permits will not be issued until the Planning Division
has approved the final landscape plan for consistency with approved site plans and minimum
ordinance standards. Please refer to the landscaping requirements in Chapter 17.61. Landscape
plans shall include, but are not limited to, data on: gallon/box size, spacing, species (reference
approved parking lot tree list), ratio of deciduous vs. evergreen, shade calculations, ground cover
calculations, etc.
(Note 1: At the time a final site inspection is conducted, it is expected that plants will match the
species identified and be installed in the locations consistent with the approved landscape plan.
Changes made without prior approval of the Planning staff may result in the removal and/or
relocation of installed plant materials and delays in obtaining building occupancy.)
(Note 2: No mature landscaping shall be removed without prior approval by the Planning
Director.)
6. Business identification signs are neither considered nor approved under this review (e.g. wall,
monument, pylon, etc.). A separate sign permit reviewed by the Planning and Building Divisions
and issued by the Building Division, is required for all new signs, including future use and
construction signs.
(Note: Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance; Chapter 17.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code. Review this Chapter as part of due diligence.)
7. Refuse collection bin enclosures and container areas are subject to all required structural setback
from street frontages, and shall not reduce any parking, loading or landscaping areas as required
by the Zoning Ordinance.
8. In the event a previously undocumented oil/gas well is uncovered or discovered on the project,
the developer is responsible to contact the California Geologic Energy Management Division
(CalGEM). The developer is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by
CalGEM. The developer shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080.B.
(Note: A capped well is near Street “A”. Prior to the approval of Public Works plans, the applicant
shall provide the location of the capped well to the Public Works Department and resolve any
adverse impacts to the public and site improvements.)
9. The developer shall meet all regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(Regulation VIII) concerning dust suppression during construction of the project. Methods
include, but are not limited to; use of water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants to control dust
emission from disturbed area, stock piles, and access ways; covering or wetting materials that are
transported off-site; limit construction-related speed to 15 mph on all unpaved areas/washing of
construction vehicles before they enter public streets to minimize carryout/track out; and cease
grading and earth moving during periods of high winds (20 mph or more).
SPR 21-0399 Page | 9 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
10. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division (staff
contact noted above) for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting and
other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items have
been installed. Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the Planning
Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site occupancy.
11. All professional biologists conducting survey work for the project shall be qualified to conduct the
type of survey work they will be performing.
12. All mitigation measures included in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for SPR No. 21-
0399 are hereby incorporated.
D. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff Contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or emedina@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Show on the final building plans the following items:
a. All fire lanes. Any modifications shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire lane
identification signs shall be installed every 100 feet with red curbing when curbing is
required. All work shall be completed before occupancy of any building or portion of any
building is allowed. Identify the fire lane and include the fire lane width, also show the
width of secondary entrance on each side of the island and include the turning radius on
the site plan sheet plan.
b. All fire hydrants, both offsite (nearest to site) and on-site. Include flow data on all
hydrants. Hydrants shall be in good working condition and are subject to testing for
verification. Fire flow requirements must be met prior to construction commencing on
the project site. Please provide two (2) sets of the water plans stamped by a licensed
Registered Civil Engineer to the Fire Department and two (2) sets to the Water Resources
Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA. 93311; 661-326-3715).
(Note: Show: 1) distance to the nearest hydrant; and 2) distance from that hydrant to the
farthest point of the project site.)
c. All fire sprinkler and/or stand pipe systems, fire alarms and commercial hood systems.
These suppression systems require review and permits by the Fire Department. The Fire
Department will issue guidelines for these various items as they may apply to this project.
d. Project address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a shopping
or business center, note the name and address of the center.
e. Name and phone number of the appropriate contact person.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 10 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
2. The developer must pay required fees to and request an inspection from the Water Resources
Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA, phone: 661-326-3715) for any underground
sprinkler feeds at least 2 full business days before they are buried. The Prevention Services
Division (2101 H Street, Bakersfield CA, Ph. 661/326-3979) must complete all on-site inspections
of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems before any building is occupied.
3. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be
installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction.
4. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire
department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete
or other driving surface approved by the fire chief. Must be capable of supporting the imposed
load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the first lift of
asphalt as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All access (Permanent and temporary) to
and around any building under construction must be a least 20 feet wide (26 feet wide where
building height exceeds 30 feet), with an overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and contain no
obstruction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the
facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
5. Turning Radius: The minimum turning radius shall be thirty-seven feet.
6. The developer shall submit two (2) sets of plans for permits and approvals from the Fire
Department for fuel tanks or related facilities before they are installed on the site. Please contact
the Prevention Services Division at 661-326-3979 for further information.
7. If you handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste on the site, the Prevention Services Division
may require a hazardous material management and/or risk management plan before you can
begin operations. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
8. If you store hazardous materials on the site in either an underground or a permanent
aboveground storage tank, a permit from the Prevention Services Division is required to install
and operate these tanks. The Prevention Services Division may also require a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan for storage of petroleum products above ground in quantities
of 1,320 gallons or more. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
9. All projects must comply with the current California Fire Code and current City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 11 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
E. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road)
(Staff contact - Tylor Hester; 661-326-3715 or THester@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Property is located outside of the City of Bakersfield domestic water service area, therefore, only
pipelines and appurtenances related to fire water are subject to review.
2. Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer
to the Water Resources Department showing all offsite and onsite improvements, including
connections to the existing water main and underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses.
Include any existing nearby on or off-site hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along
with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans
shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of
Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are
available for download from the City’s website at
www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/water_resources/fees.htm
3. Developer shall pay the required Water Resources Fire Service Inspection Fees and submit an
Inspection Request Form for any underground fire waterlines and their apparatuses at least two
(2) full business days before permanent construction. The form is available for download from
the City’s website at www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/water_resources/fees.htm
F. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The developer shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street/alley paving
along Landco Drive, Street “A”, and portions of Knudsen Drive per Recorded Agreement 04-274,
according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
2. The developer shall install streetlights along Knudsen Drive, Landco Drive, and Street ”A” as per
Standard ST-23.6. The developer shall be responsible for providing the labor and materials
necessary to energize all newly installed streetlights before occupancy of the building or site.
Submit street light location and contact the Public Works Department at (661) 326-3584 for street
light number.
3. The developer shall construct standard accessible ramps at the northeast corner of Knudsen Drive
and Street “A” and at the northwest corner of Landco Drive, and Street “A” according to adopted
city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the
Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 12 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
4. The developer shall install new connection(s) to the public sewer system. This connection shall
be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits
will be issued.
5. All on-site areas required to be paved (i.e. parking lots, access drives, loading areas, etc.) shall
consist of concrete, asphaltic concrete (Type B. A. C.) or other paved street material approved by
the City Engineer. Pavement shall be a minimum thickness of 2 inches over 3 inches of approved
base material (i.e. Class II A. B.) if concrete is used, it shall be a minimum thickness of 4 inches per
Municipal Code Section 17.58.060.A. This paving standard shall be noted on the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
6. If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued until the
grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division.
7. All storm water generated on the project site, including the street frontage shall be retained onsite
unless otherwise allowed by the Public Works Department (please contact the Public Works
Department – Subdivisions at 661-326-3576). Construction of permanent drainage facility shall be
in accordance with Recorded Agreement 04-274 or as otherwise approved by both the applicant
and Public Works Director.
8. If the project generates industrial waste, it shall be subject to the requirements of the Industrial
Waste Ordinance. An industrial waste permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department before issuance of the building permit. To find out what type of waste is considered
industrial, please contact the Wastewater Treatment Superintendent at 661-326-3249.
9. Before any building or site can be occupied, the developer must reconstruct or repair substandard
off-site street improvements that front the site to adopted city standards as directed by the City
Engineer. Please call the Construction Desk at 661-326-3049 to schedule a site inspection to find
out what improvements may be required prior to submitting a grading plan. Any off-site/frontage
improvements or repairs required during the site inspection shall be shown on the grading plan.
10. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be done
within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this site plan
review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit.
11. A sewer connection fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. We will base this fee
at the rate in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
12. If the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (SWRCB Order No. 2009-009-DWQ as
SPR 21-0399 Page | 13 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity.
Compliance with the general permit required that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection
during normal construction hours.
13. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, or if no building permit is required, the first required
City approval prior to construction, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the applicable
approval is issued or in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, as applicable. The Public Works
Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of construction plans for
the project.
14. The developer shall form a new Maintenance District. Undeveloped parcels within an existing
Maintenance District are required to update Maintenance District documents. Updated
documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. If there
are questions, contact Stephan Trujillo at 661-326-3576.
(Note: If already within a maintenance district, may need to update the maintenance district
form.)
16. The developer shall install a full-sized manhole in each sewer line except residential development
before it connects to the sewer main. This manhole is to be located within the property being
developed and must be easily accessible by City workers.
G. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Street return type approaches, if used, shall have 20-foot minimum radius returns with a 19-ft to
36-foot throat width. All dimensions shall be shown on the final building plans.
2. Two-way drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. If perpendicular (90º) parking spaces
are proposed where a vehicle must back into these aisles, the minimum aisle width shall be 25
feet. All drive aisle dimension shall be shown on the final building plans.
3. Show the typical parking stall dimension on the final building plans (minimum stall size is 9 feet x
18 feet and shall be designed according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer).
4. Walls, fences, or trash enclosures within 10 feet of a sidewalk at an alley or driveway shall not
exceed 3 feet in height above the curb flow line. You must either revise the circulation design or
show on the final building plans that the maximum fence/wall height will not exceed three feet.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 14 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. The developer shall dedicate additional road right-of-way to the City of Bakersfield along Landco
Drive and Street ”A” to full local street width according to adopted city standards with the grading
plan submittal. Street ”A” shall be dedicated by an easement or other acceptable instrument as a
public local street built to City standards, as approved by the City Engineer.
6. The developer shall dedicate any sidewalk extending out of the right of way to the City of
Bakersfield for the pedestrian way along all arterial streets. This must be conducted with a
separate instrument or final map.
7. On Knudsen Drive, striping for left turn channelization shall be provided for any access leading to
a development which, at build out, generates more than 50 peak hour trips.
H. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff Contact - Jesus Carrera; 661-326-3114 or jcarrera@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or work
begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the collection of
refuse and/or recycled materials. Collection locations must provide enough containment area for
the refuse that is generated without violating required zoning or setback restrictions (see Planning
Division conditions). Levels of service are based on how often collection occurs as follows:
Cart service -- 1 cubic yard/week or less 1 time per week
Front loader bin services -- 1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day
Roll-off compactor service -- More than 12 cubic yards/day
2. Show on the final building plans refuse/recycle bin enclosures. Each enclosure shall be designed
according to adopted city standard (Detail # ST-27 and ST-28), at the size checked below .
Before occupancy of the building or site is allowed, 2, 3-cubic yard front loading type
refuse/recycle bin(s) shall be placed within the required enclosure(s).
__________6' deep x 8' wide (1 bin) _________8' deep x 15' wide (3 bins)
_________8' deep x 10' wide (2 bins) _________8' deep x 20' wide (4 bins)
One, 8' deep x 10' wide (inside dimension); on skids for direct stab only (1-6 yard
recycling bin)
(Note: All measurements above are curb-to-curb dimensions inside the enclosure. If both refuse
and recycling containers are to be combined in the same enclosure area, this area must be
expanded in size to accommodate multiple containers/bins - contact the staff person above for
the appropriate enclosure size.)
SPR 21-0399 Page | 15 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
3. Examples of enclosure styles can be found on (Detail # ST-32).
4. Show on the final building plans one compactor roll-off bin location(s), designed according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST-30 and ST-31). Please contact staff for additional information
on compactor requirements and placement.
5. Facilities that require infectious waste services shall obtain approval for separate infectious waste
storage areas from the Kern County Health Department. In no instances shall the refuse bin area
be used for infectious waste containment purposes.
6. Facilities that require grease containment must provide a storage location that is separate from
the refuse bin location. This shall be shown on the final building plans. If a grease interceptor is
to be used instead of a grease containment bin, the plans must still show the location of an
adequately sized enclosure should a grease containment bin be required at a future date. The
grease containment bin shall not share the same enclosure as the refuse/recyclable/organic bin
enclosure.
7. Facilities with existing refuse service must improve the service location area(s) according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST-27 and ST-28). These improvements shall be clearly shown on
the final building plans.
8. If utilities are incorporated into the enclosure design, they shall not interfere with space provided
for refuse bins and must provide sufficient protection measures to guard the utilities from
damage.
9. Enclosures shall not be located in an area that would cause refuse trucks to interfere with drive
thru traffic flow entering or exiting the site, drive thru lanes, etc.
10. Businesses are required to have sufficient capacity of refuse/recycling/organic material storage to
go without service for 1 day (Sunday). At any time refuse/recycling/organic services become an
issue, businesses shall construct a second refuse enclosure to meet the demand. The second
enclosure shall be approved by the City prior to construction.
11. Revise the site plan to make the trash enclosure accessible to the refuse truck. City trucks may
not drive down dead-end corridors, nor back-up long distances; therefore, a turn-around area
shall be provided.
Attachment
Recorded Agreement 04-274
SPR 21-0399 Page | 16 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PROJECT APPLICANT:
I agree to the project’s conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with any and all
conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
Signature Date
Print Name
AGREEME.T.O. 0 4- 2 ? 4
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
SEP 2 2 2004THISAGREEMENTismadeandenteredintoon , by and
between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation, ("CITY" herein) and TOM
AND LISA CAROSELLA, husband and wife, and GENE D. BOREL AND JERRY L. BOREL,
Co-Trustees ("OWNERS" herein).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, OWNERS desire to annex OWNERSS' real property, which is described
as APN 365-020-30 (Carosella) and APN 365-020-28 (Borel) (hereafter, the "Subject
Properties"); and
WHEREAS, This agreement is a product of negotiations and is in lieu of potential
eminent domain proceedings and includes any and all claims by SELLER for compensation
arising from this transaction including, but not limited to relocation assistance benefits.
WHEREAS, OWNERS will not protest the annexation of the Subject Property into the
CITY, based on certain assurances as stated below made by the CITY; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 may require that before CITY can annex the subject
property, the OWNERS must approve the imposition or extension of any assessment or tax
which is imposed on similarly situated properties within the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and OWNERS
mutually agree as follows:
1. ANNEXATION TO CITY. OWNERS hereby consent to and waive any protest
rights to the annexation of the subject property to the CITY as shown by the attached "Official
Assessment Ballot" signed by OWNERS.
2. PURCHASE OF KNUDSEN DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. CITY agrees to purchase
the necessary right of way for the full width of future Knudsen Drive along the westerly
boundary of APN 365-020-28, described in Exhibit "A", at a cost of $4.00 per square foot, for a
total purchase price of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY
EIGHT DOLLARS ($264,148). This price is a product of negotiations and includes any and all
claims by SELLER for compensation arising from this transaction. Prior to the close of escrow
BUYER shall deposit the purchase price and closing costs into an escrow account with
Chicago Title Insurance Company, herein "Escrow Holder", located at Maria Bernat.
3. BUYER'S CONTINGENCIES. The closing of this transaction is contingent upon
the satisfaction or waiver of the following contingencies. Each of these contingencies must be
satisfied prior to any obligation of the BUYER to become effective. The failure to complete
these contingencies within the time stated, or within any mutually-agreed extended time, shall
terminate this Agreement with no liability of BUYER for any direct or consequential damages:
G:\GROU PDAT~ADMINRPT~.004\08-18~Annexation Agmt.doc Page I of 7
3.1 Marketable fee simple title. SELLER specifically recognizes that
BUYER=s agreement to purchase The Property is contingent upon SELLER=s ability to
provide clear marketable fee simple title as defined in this Agreement. It shall be the
BUYER=s decision whether or not this contingency has been satisfied. BUYER shall issuewrittenapprovalofacurrentPreliminaryTitleReportCPTR") concerning The PropertyissuedbytheEscrowHolder, as well as all documents referred to in the PTR or this
Agreement (the "underlying documents"), and the issuance by the Escrow Holder of a title
policy. SELLER shall cause the PTR and all underlying documents to be delivered toBUYERpromptlyafterthedateofagreement. BUYER's approval is to be given within ten
10) days after receipt of said PTR and legible copies of all underlying documents. The
disapproval by BUYER of any monetary encumbrance, which by the terms of the
Agreement is not to remain against The Property after the closing, shall not be considered
a failure of this condition, as SELLER shall have the obligation, at SELLER's expense, to
satisfy and remove such disapproved monetary encumbrance at or before the closing;
3.2 Documents. The delivery of all documents and the due performance bySELLERofeachandeveryundertakingandagreementtobeperformedbySELLERunderthisAgreement;
3.3Material Change. No material change, as hereinafter defined, shall have
occurred with respect to The Property which has not been approved in writing by BUYER.For purposes of this Agreement, a "material change" shall be a change in the status of the
use, occupancy, tenants or condition of The Property as reasonably expected by the
BUYER, that occurs after the date of this Agreement and prior to the close of escrow.
BUYER shall have twenty (20) days following receipt of written notice from any source of
any such material change within which to approve or disapprove same. Unless otherwise
notified in writing by either party, Escrow Holder shall assume that no material change has
occurred prior to the close of escrow;
3.4No Existing Leases and Tenancy Statements. SELLER represents that
there are no leases, subleases or rental arrangements (herein the "existing leases");
3.5Other Agreements. SELLER shall within fifteen (15) working days of thedateofthisAgreementprovideBUYERwithlegiblecopiesofallotheragreementsknown
to SELLER that will affect The Property after the closing;
3.6Unrecorded Title Matters. SELLER has no actual knowledge of anyencumbrances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, licenses, liens, charges or
other matters which affect the title of The Property that are not recorded in the Official
Records of the Kern County Recorder;
3.7Possessory Rights. SELLER has no knowledge that anyone or any entitywill, at the time of the closing, have any right to possession of The Property, except asdisclosedbytheSELLERinwritingtoBUYER.
All of the above contingencies are for the benefit of, and may be waived in
writing by, BUYER and may be elsewhere herein referred to as "BUYER's contingencies."
G:\GROUPDATxADM INR PTX2004\08-18~Annexation Agmt.doc Page 2 of 7
4. SELLER'S WARRANTIES. SELLER hereby makes the following warranties and
representations to BUYER which shall survive the closing and delivery of the grant deed for a
period of five (5) years:
4.'1 Authority of SELLER. SELLER warrants and represents that they are the
sole owners, in fee simple, of and have the right and legal ability to transfer said Property totheBUYERassetforthinthisAgreement;
4.2 Hazardous Substances. SELLER has no knowledge, except as otherwisedisclosedtoBUYERinwriting, of the existence or prior existence on The Property of anyhazardoussubstance, nor of the existence or prior existence of any above or below-groundstoragetank(s);
4.3Legal Proceedings. SELLER has no knowledge of any actions, lawsuits
or proceedings pending or threatened before any commission, board, bureau, agency,arbitrator, court or tribunal that would affect The Property or the right to occupy or utilize
same;
4.4Bankruptcy Proceedings. SELLER is not the subject of a bankruptcy,insolvency or probate proceeding and has no notice or knowledge that any tenant, lessee
or other person/entity possessing an interest in The Property is the subject of a bankruptcyorinsolvencyproceeding.
5. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE, SELLER agrees to convey to BUYER marketable
fee simple title to The Property free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens,encumbrances, assessments, easements, licenses, leases and taxes, excepting those agreedtoinwritingbyBUYER. The amount of any bond or assessment which is a lien shall be paidbySELLER, subject to approval of title report. SELLER shall execute a Grant Deed which
conveys clear title to The Property to BUYER and deliver same to Escrow Holder within fifteen
15) days of the opening of escrow. Any and all water and mineral rights accruing to The
Property shall also be transferred to BUYER without reservation.
6. CLOSING COSTS. BUYER shall be responsible for all normal and reasonable
escrow fees, including the costs of title insurance. SELLER shall be responsible for the costs
to clear title and all real property taxes and assessments accruing up to the close of escrow.
SELLER shall fully pay the amount of any bond or assessment which is a lien upon The
Property prior to the close of escrow.
7. ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, Within fifteen (15) working days of execution of this
Agreement by all parties, each shall deliver to the Escrow Holder any appropriately executed
escrow instructions or file a written protest detailing what instructions are not acceptable. This
Agreement shall serve as the parties' instructions to the Escrow Holder and shall become partoftheescrowinstructionsforconsummationofthepurchaseandsaleofTheProperty.BUYER and SELLER agree to execute such additional and supplementary instructions as maybeappropriateorrequiredbyEscrowHoldertocomplywiththetermsofthisAgreement;provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and any additional
or supplementary escrow instructions, the terms of this Agreement shall control, unless the
parties jointly agree to the contrary. Said escrow instructions are incorporated herein by this
reference.
G:\OROIJPDA'I~ADNIINRPT~OO4~OS-18~Ani3cxation Agmt.doc Page 3 o~' 7 ;i ''
8. CLOSING DATE. Escrow shall close no later than ten (10) days after the
satisfaction of all contingencies set forth herein, unless extended by mutual written agreement
of both parties. In no event shall the escrow close less than ninety (90) days from execution of
this Agreement by all parties, unless by mutual agreement of all parties.
9. POSSESSION OF SELLER=S PARCEL. SELLER agrees to give possession of
The Property to BUYER at the close of escrow.
10. DEDICATION OF KUNDSEN DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. OWNERS agree to
dedicate to CiTY necessary right of way for future Knudsen Drive along the westerly boundary
of APN 365-020-30 as described in Exhibit "B".
11. KNUDSEN DRIVE CONSTRUCTION. CITY agrees to construct Knudsen Drive
as shown in Exhibit "C". OWNER agrees to allow Knudsen Drive drainage to be disposed of
on OWNER'S property in a temporary sump which will be maintained by CITY. Prior to any
development on OWNER'S property, CITY will construct permanent drainage facilities, remove
temporary drainage basin and construct permanent disposal facilities outside of OWNER'S of
property, at CITY'S expense.
12. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a
provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a
provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
13. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This contract sets forth the entire Agreement
between the parties and supersedes alt other oral or written representations. This contract
may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.
14. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any party prior to the
initiation of any of the work detailed above, and prior to the initiation of annexation
proceedings, upon ten days written notice, served by mail or personal service, to all other
parties.
15. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution of the Agreement
and Ballot Measure attached hereto as Exhibit "A." This Agreement is the product of
negotiation and therefore shall not be construed against any party.
16. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in wdting and
shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual
personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as
follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY:CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
OWNERS:TOM AND LISA CAROSELLA
1412 17TH STREET
Bakersfield, California 93301
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~004~08-18~Annexafion Agmt.dcc Page 4 of 7
GENE D. BOREL
6502 YOSEMITE PLACE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93309
JERRY L. BOREL
8918 ETCHART ROAD
BAKERSFIELD CA 93312
17. GOVERNING LAW. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or
growing out of, this contract shall be instituted in Kern County, California.
18. ASSIGNMENT. This contract shall not be assigned by any party, or any partysubstituted, without prior written consent of all the parties.
19. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure tothebenefitof, and be binding upon, the parties to the contract and their heirs, administrators,executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
20. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this AgreementrepresentsandwarrantstheyaredulyauthorizedtoexecuteanddeliverthisAgreementonbehalfofthecorporationororganization, if any, named herein and this Agreement is bindinguponsaidcorporationororganizationinaccordancewithitsterms.
21. TAX EFFECT. This transaction is in lieu of eminent domain action. However,none of the parties (nor such parties' counsel or accountants) has made or is making in this
Agreement any representation to any other party (or such party's counsel or accountants)concerning any of the tax effects or consequences on the other party of the transactionsprovidedforinthisAgreement. Each party represents that it has obtained, or may obtain,independent tax advice with respect thereto and upon which it, if so obtained, has solely relied.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed, the day and year first-above written.
CITY"
By:
Mayor
G:\GROUPDAT~ADM INR1'1%2004~08-18~Anncxafion Agmt.doc
TOM CAROSELLA _. _...--.,
G/ENE D. BOREL
Page 5 of 7 ~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENARRO
City Attorney
ERRY ~f~BC~REI
ALAI~I-I~AI~
Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
By:~_ ,~---/~/.~.
Development Servic/A~rector
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
COUNTERSIGNED:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
By:
GREGORY J. KLIMKO
Finance Director
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPTX2004~08-18kAnnexation Agmt.doc Page 6 of 7
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
IMPORTANT - OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSESSMENT BALLOT
This assessment ballot is for the use of property OWNERS of the parcel(s) identified below, which parcel(s) is
proposed to be annexed into the City of Bakersfield.
This assessment ballot may be used to express either support for or opposition to inclusion within the proposed
annexation and the extension or imposition of any tax or assessment currently being levied by the City of
Bakersfield. In order to be counted, this assessment ballot must be signed below by an OWNER or, if the
OWNERS are not individuals, by an authorized representative of the OWNERS.
TO CAST THIS BALLOT, PLEASE RETURN THIS ENTIRE PAGE
OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOT
OWNERS: TOM AND LISA CAROSELLA AND
GENE D. BOREL AND JERRY L. BOREL
Property Description: APN 365-020- AND APN 30 365-020-28
Individual taxes or assessments shall not exceed those taxes or assessments levied on
similarly situated properties within the City of Bakersfield as of the date of the
execution of this ballot.
ASSESSMENT BALLOT MEASURE
Shall the City Council of the City of Bakersfield
include the above described property within the
proposed annexation and levy individual taxes and
assessments not to exceed those taxes or assessments
levied on similarly situated properties with the City
of Bakersfield as of the date of execution of this ballot?
Yes X
No
Date: ,200
OWNERS' Signatures "~~r~~ ~r~-~- ~.
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~2004~08-18~Anncxation Agmt.doc Page 7 of 7
Exhibit "A"
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 1 in the Northeast ~.4 of Section 15, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as shown on the sales map of
lands of the Kern County Land Company filed April 8, 1892, in the Office of the Kern
County Recorder, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 15; thence North 89° 10' 32" West,
along the North line of said Section 15, 663.86 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the
West line of said Lot 1; thence South 0~ 13' 29" West, along said West line of Lot 1,
592.19 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1), South 89' 10' 32" East, a distance of 90.01 feet;
Thence (2), South 0° 13' 29" East a distance of 733.52 feet to a point on the South line
of said Lot 1;
Thence (3), N 89° 10' 32' West, along ,said South line a distance of 90.01 feet to the
Southwest corner of said Lot 1;
Thence (4), North 0° 13' 29" East, along said West line of Lot 1, a distance of 733.52 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 1.516 acres, more or less.
End of Description
TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING
S 89'IO'J2"E
OLIVE DFIIVE
S 89~i0'32"£ 663.86'
S 89~O'J2"E 90.00'
CORNER
SECIION 15 29/27
0 50
EXHIBIT 'A '
Exhibit "B"
A pamel of land being a portion of Lot 1 in the Northeast ~,4 of Section 15, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as shown on the sales map of
lands of the Kern County Land Company filed April 8, 1892, in the Office of the Kern
County Recorder, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 15; thence North 89' 10' 32" West,
along the North line of said Section 15, 663.86 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the
West line of said Lot 1; thence South 0° 13' 29" West, along said West line of Lot 1,
292.17 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1), South 89° 10' 32' East, a distance of 106.01 feet;
Thence (2), South 3° 16' 45" West, a distance of 300.28 feet;
Thence (3), N 89° 10' 32" West, a distance of 90.01 feet to a point on said West line of
Lot 1;
Thence (4), North 0° 13' 29" East, along said West line, a distance of 300.02 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 0.675 acres, more or less.
End of Description
TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING
OLIVE DRIVE
S 89'10'32" E663.86'
89'10'32'*E
106.01'
t
oo
APN 36~5-020-30
89'10'32"E
90. O0 '
CORNER
SEC710N 15 29/27
0 50
EXHIBIT 'B'
R/W FL ~ R/~
A
34'VARIES VARIES
CURB ~D ~~UTTER
CT. TION A-A ~
A
AND GUT~R
R,/W FL ~ R/W
11', , 34' ,
CURB ~
20' EP 2.5'
PAt,ED SlREET
SECTION B-B
J J
FEET
0 5O
EXHIBIT ~-~,~ ~
OFiSiNAL
Channel Law Group, LLP
JULIAN K. QUATTLEBAUM, lII
JAMIE T. HALL *
CHARLES J. McLURKIN
* ALSO Admitted in Texas
September 15, 2023
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Bakersfield Planning Commission
c/o Planning Director
1715 Chester A venue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
8383 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 750
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 347-0050
Fax: (323) 723-3960
www.channellawgroup.com
ZOB SEP 15 AH 3: 30
BAKERSFIE
Writer's Direct Line: (310) 982-1760
jamie.hall@channellawgroup.com
Re: Appeal of Site Plan Review; Project No. 21-0399 (Ward 3)
Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm serves as legal counsel for Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC ("PBV").
Pursuant to Section 17.08.080(£) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, this letter shall constitute
written notice of PBV's appeal from the approval of the above-referenced Site Plan Review
("SPR"), relating to the development of a Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") outpatient clinic
located at 5512 Knudsen Drive ("Project"), as confirmed by the Notice of Decision, dated
September 8, 2023.
I. Municipal Code 17 .08.080 Appeal
PBV has significant concerns regarding the integrity of the approval process undertaken for this
Project and opposes the adoption of the SPR, as well as the corresponding Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2023. The letter submitted
by Channel Law Group on behalf of PBV, dated June 20, 2023 to the Planning Commission
summarizes the principal bases of PB V's opposition to the Project, including the inadequacies of the
EIR and the SPR. These bases continue to be supplemented due to the lack oftime afforded to PBV
to review the EJR and associated Project documents prior to approval of the SPR for the Project.
a. Basis for Appeal
Approval of the SPR has resulted in a misapplication of the City's zoning regulations and
development standards, as well as the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000 et seq. ("CEQA").
b. Issues for Consideration on Appeal
The issues PBV intends to address on appeal include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The SPR Application was incomplete and misleading.
• The SPR was conducted based on an inadequate Project description and incorrectly
concludes that the Project is a permitted use under the City's M-2 Zoning Ordinance.
• The Project description fails to disclose that the clinic will treat patients with contagious
diseases, as well as those suffering from drug and/or alcohol addiction, which changes the
land use compatibility analysis; such a use requires a conditional use pe1mit ("CUP") in a
M-2zone.
• There are a number of Project conditions contained in the SPR Conditions that should have
been incorporated into the EIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") as
mitigation measures; the EIR appears to relying on these conditions to mitigate ce1tain
impacts (that have not been sufficiently analyzed) to less than significant level.
• The decision to approve the SPR was based on a legally deficient EIR, and must be
overturned. The environmental review process must be re-initiated to evaluate the Project
based on a complete and accurate Project description and the full range of potentially
significant impacts that would result from the Project and to account for the requirement to
obtain a CUP.
Based on the foregoing reasons, among others, PBV opposes the approval of the SPR and
respectfully requests that the Planning Commission grant the appeal, direct that a CUP be required,
and require fmther review of the Project's environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA.
c. Request for Hearing
It is requested that the City Clerk set this appeal for hearing before the Planning
Commission and issue proper notice of the hearing, pursuant to Section 17.08.080(E)(2) of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code. PBV reserves the right to submit additional info1mation in support of
this appeal.
II. Related Appeal of Mitigated Negative Declaration
In connection with pursuing an appeal of the SPR, PBV has simultaneously filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's adoption of the related EIR and adoption of findings that the applicable
provisions of CEQA have been complied with and that the Project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts. Although the SPR and EIR are inextricably linked, PBV was instructed by
Louis Ramirez to file two separate appeals, which would result in the Planning Commission hearing
the appeal on the SPR and the City Council hearing the appeal on the EIR.
II
2
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact our
office with questions concerning this appeal or the grounds upon which this appeal is being lodged.
Sincerely,
Jamie T. Hall
3
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 1
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: October 5, 2023 AGENDA: 6.a
TO: Chair Bashirtash and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Johnson, Planning Director
DATE: September 29, 2023
WARD: 4
FILE: SPR 21-0399 (SCH #2022080337)
STAFF PLANNER: Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II
REQUEST: Appeal for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
SASD Dev Group, LLC Lundy Family Trust Carosella Trust
4895 Pacific Highway 6607 Mt. Whitney Drive 8501 Pacheco Road #100
San Diego, CA 92110 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Bakersfield, CA 93311
PROJECT LOCATION: 5512 Knudsen Drive
APN: 565-020-28 and 565-020-30
PROJECT SIZE: ±10.05 gross acres CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SI (Service Industrial)
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: M-2 (General Manufacturing)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution DENYING the
appeal and upholding the Development Service Director’s decisions to approve Site Plan Review No. 21-
0399 as depicted in the project description and subject to the listed mitigation measures and conditions
of approval.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site consists of two undeveloped parcels of land which are bounded
to the north, east and west by property within Kern County jurisdiction. Surrounding properties are
primarily developed as: north – commercial land; east – undeveloped land; south – self storage and
commercial land; and west – Kern County Fire Department Training Facilities.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 2
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• July 28, 2012 - City Council approved the annexation of the project site into the City of Bakersfield as
part of Annexation No. 635 (Landco No. 2; Resolution No. 93-11).
• January 7, 2021 - City Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
environmental compliance for Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to allow construction of a U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic on the project site (Resolution
No. 03-21).
• January 8, 2021 - Development Services Director approved Site Plan Review No. 20-0102.
• January 15, 2021 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Hagan Law Group, LLP
appealed adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to City Council and appealed approval of
Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to the City Planning Commission.
• February 4, 2021 - City Planning Commission heard and denied the appeal and upheld the decision of
the Development Services Director approving Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 (Resolution No. 09-21).
• February 12, 2021 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Hagan Law Group, LLP
appealed the City Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 to City Council.
• March 3, 2021 - City Council heard and denied both appeals and upheld the decisions of the Planning
Commission by adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 029-2021) and approving
Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 (Resolution No. 030-2021).
• April 12, 2021 - California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit served on the City alleging:
o Project will have significant adverse effects on the environment;
o Onsite contamination requires testing the soil and groundwater;
o Failure to comply with land use requirements, including City’s General Plan and Zone Change since
the current zoning is inconsistent for the project;
o Impacts on biological resources, transportation, air quality, tribal cultural resources and
geology/soils, energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, hazard and hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic, utility services systems; and
o Abuse of discretion in approving the Site Plan Review based on inaccurate Project description.
Petitioner: Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Channel Law Group, LLP; Hagan-
Denison, LLP; and Soluri Meserve, a Law Corporation (Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-21-
100778).
• July 14, 2021 - As a result of the lawsuit, the project applicant (SASD Development Group, LLC),
represented by their attorneys (Rutan & Tucker; and Klein DeNatale Goldner) requested City Council
rescind Resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan Review No. 20-0102.
• September 1, 2021 - City Council rescinded the Resolutions (Resolution No. 172-2021).
• September 17, 2021 - SASD Development Group, LLC and Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC signed
a confidential settlement agreement. The City was not involved in settlement, nor did City pay out
any money.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 3
• September 28, 2021 - Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
• October 19, 2021 - SASD Development Group, LLC submitted Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 for
construction of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic located on
the project site.
• September 7, 2023 - City Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 (Resolution 71-23).
• September 8, 2023 - Development Service Director approved Site Plan Review No. 21-0399.
• September 15, 2023 - Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC, represented by Channel Law Group
appealed certification of the Environmental Impact Report to City Council and appealed approval of
Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 to the City Planning Commission.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Project Description. Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 (Project) was submitted for a proposed U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) located at 5512 Knudsen
Drive. The CBOC is designed to have a gross building floor area of up to 39,648 square feet with a net
usable area of 30,100 square feet. The building floor plan will be separated into primary and specialty care
clinic areas that 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 user of the building will be the Veterans Heath Administration.
Site Development. The proposed building is rectangular in shape and will be positioned diagonally on the
site with the long sides of the building facing east and west and the shorter sides facing north and south.
The building will have a maximum height of 31 feet to the top of the sloped roof. The building is designed
in a contemporary style and will be painted shades of gray, white, and blue. The main entrance and patient
drop-off area will be in the northwest corner of the building, facing the main parking area. Sloped roofs
and glass curtain wall will be featured at the main entrance.
A mix of shade trees, palm trees, small evergreen trees, screen trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be
planted along the perimeter of the Project site. Shade trees, accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover will
also be planted in the parking areas. Landscaping, featuring shade trees, small evergreen trees, accent
trees, shrubs, perennials, groundcover, and irrigated turf, will also occur at the entries and around the
perimeter of the building. A healing garden is proposed on the northeast side of the building which will
include garden paths, benches, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf.
Access/Parking. Vehicular access to the Project site will be provided by a main public entrance on Knudsen
Drive with a secondary public entrance on Landco Drive. A staff entrance and service entrance will be on
Landco Drive and Street “A” Street. The Project site will also include street improvements and the
installation of site-adjacent Americans with Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks and ramps for the street
frontages on the east - Landco Drive, south - Street “A”, and west - Knudsen Drive. The site design includes
214 parking stalls, including 184 standard stalls, 6 motorcycle stalls, 19 accessible-standard stalls, and 5
accessible-van stalls.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 4
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Site Plan Approval Required. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.060, no person shall
construct any improvements on land which require a building permit without first obtaining site plan
approval.
Site Plan Approval Process. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080 the application for
site plan approval is reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee (Committee) which is established and
consists of the Planning Director, Building Director, Fire Chief, and Public Works Director, or their
designated representatives. The site plans are reviewed by the following City Departments:
• Development Services Department/Building Division
• Development Services Department/Planning Division
• Fire Department
• Water Resources
• Public Works Department/Engineering Division
• Public Works Department/Traffic Division
• Public Works Department/Solid Waste Division
• Recreation and Parks Department (as needed)
• Bakersfield Police Department (as needed)
The Committee reviews and provides comments to the Planning Director who, in-turn, shall conduct an
environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) implementation
guidelines and state law to determine if a project is subject to CEQA. Staff notes the Committee completed
its review of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 and as proposed, complies with City development standards.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in compliance with CEQA and certified by the City
Planning Commission on September 7, 2023 (see Attachments B through F).
After considering the recommendations from the Committee and the Planning Director, and after
approving any CEQA documents, the Development Services Director may approve, conditionally approve,
or deny the site plan. Staff notes Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 was approved by the Development Services
Director on September 8, 2023, and a Notice of Decision filed with the City Clerk and State Clearinghouse
(see Attachments G and H).
APPEAL
Environmental Impact Report Appeal Procedure. Pursuant to the City of Bakersfield California
Environmental Quality Act Implementation Procedures Section VI, within ten days after certification of an
EIR, any individual may appeal that decision. The appeal must be in writing to the City Clerk accompanied
with the appropriate filing fee as required by the City.
Site Plan Review Appeal Procedure. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, any
person not satisfied with the decision of the Development Services Director may, within ten days of the
date of that decision, appeal to the City Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal and
payment of fees with the Planning Director setting forth the precise basis and issues on appeal and
requesting a hearing thereon. Only appeals of issues subject to review by the Planning Commission will
be accepted for filing.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 5
Appeals Filed. On September 15, 2023, Progress for Bakersfield Veterans LLC (PBV), represented by
Channel Law Group, LLP filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and the
Development Services Director’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 21-0399. Staff notes the EIR appeal will
be considered by the City Council while the Site Plan Review appeal is considered by the City Planning
Commission (see Attachments I and J).
Basis for Site Plan Review Appeal. PBV states that approval of the Site Plan Review has resulted in a
misapplication of the City's zoning regulations and development standards, as well as the requirements
of CEQA.
Issues for Consideration on Site Plan Review Appeal. According to the appeal letter, the issues PBV
intends to address on appeal include, but are not limited to, the following. Each is followed by staff’s
response.
Appeal Issue No. 1
Comment - The SPR Application was incomplete and misleading.
Response - The appellant failed to provide a precise basis for their assertion that the Site Plan Review
(SPR) application was incomplete or misleading. However, it is noteworthy that the Planning Division
received a fully compliant SPR application, adhering to the prerequisites of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code.
Appeal Issue No. 2
Comment - The SPR was conducted based on an inadequate Project description and incorrectly concludes
that the Project is a permitted use under the City’s M-2 Zoning Ordinance.
Response - The appellant's assertion that the SPR was based on an inadequate Project description lacks
specificity. Nevertheless, it is imperative to underscore that the Committee conducted a thorough review
of a complete SPR application with a stable project description. Furthermore, the Project description
complied with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, which states that the description of the project shall
contain certain information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and
review of the environmental impact.
The appellant's assertion regarding the Project's compatibility with the M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone
is similarly lacking specific substantiation. However, the appellant does correctly identify the Project site's
location within the M-2 zone. It is important to recognize that, due to the City's utilization of the pyramid
or Euclid zoning system, permissible uses within the C-O (Professional and Administrative Office), C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (Regional Commercial), and M-1 (Light Industrial) zones are
automatically considered as permissible uses within the M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone. In accordance
with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.20.020, permissible uses in the C-O zone encompass a range
of activities, notably including "Medical, dental, psychiatric, and other health practitioner offices and
clinics, including chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, and blood banks," along with "Pharmacies,
in conjunction with medical clinics." Consequently, it is a well-founded determination that outpatient
clinics such as the proposed CBOC are indeed permissible within the M-2 zone.
It is also worth recognizing that multiple medical clinics are presently situated within both commercial
and industrial zones throughout Bakersfield. This is further exemplified by the existing VA CBOC located
at 1801 Westwind Drive in the C-2 zone.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 6
Appeal Issue No. 3
Comment - The Project description fails to disclose that the clinic will treat patients with contagious
diseases, as well as those suffering from drug and/or alcohol addiction, which changes the land use
compatibility analysis; such a use requires a conditional use permit (CUP) in a M-2 zone.
Response - The appellant appears to be referring to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.28.030, which
requires a conditional use permit in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone for "Clinics, hospitals, sanitariums, or
other buildings for contagious, mental, drug, or alcohol addiction cases." These types of provisions were
designed to encompass in-patient facilities offering long-term and overnight accommodations for
treatment. In contrast, the proposed Project exclusively entails an outpatient clinic, without any overnight
services. Therefore, the prerequisite for a conditional use permit is not applicable in this context. It should
be noted that any future alterations to the project description that necessitate additional permitting, such
as a conditional use permit, will be communicated to the applicant to ensure the operation remains in
compliance with the Municipal Code.
It is also worth highlighting that the requirement for a conditional use permit to allow "Clinics, hospitals,
sanitariums, or other buildings for contagious, mental, drug, or alcohol addiction cases" within the M-1
zone was introduced into the Bakersfield Municipal Code in 1982 (Ordinance No. 2707). Most notably, the
existing VA CBOC at 1801 Westwind Drive received approval in 1991 within the M-1 zone; later changed
to its current C-2 zoning. During that time, a conditional use permit was not required, and the project
underwent review via Site Plan Review No. 18-91-B. Additionally, the project was determined to be
exempt from CEQA, so no environmental document was prepared. Therefore, it was the determination
of the staff at that time, and continues to be, that the proposed VA CBOC does not necessitate a
conditional use permit within the M-1 or M-2 zones.
Appeal Issue No. 4
Comment - There are a number of Project conditions contained in the SPR Conditions that should have
been incorporated into the EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) as mitigation
measures; the EIR appears to relying (sic) on these conditions to mitigate certain impacts (that have not
been sufficiently analyzed) to less than significant level.
Response - The appellant does not specify the particular conditions they believe should be incorporated
as mitigation measures, nor do they identify which impacts they contend have not been subjected to
sufficient analysis. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that the City Planning Commission diligently
certified the EIR on September 7, 2023, concurrent with the adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Consideration, all of which were
completed in strict adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Furthermore, all potential environmental impacts were mitigated to a "less-than-significant" degree with
the singular exception being greenhouse gas emissions. In alignment with CEQA guidelines, the City
Planning Commission judiciously evaluated and determined that the project's benefits, primarily based
on social, economic, and environmental advantages, outweighed the significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impact stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Appeal Issue No. 5
Comment - The decision to approve the SPR was based on a legally deficient EIR, and must be overturned.
The environmental review process must be re-initiated to evaluate the Project based on a complete and
accurate Project description and the full range of potentially significant impacts that would result from
the Project and to account for the requirement to obtain a CUP.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 7
Response - The appellant's argument lacks specificity on how the Project description makes the EIR legally
deficient. To reiterate what is stated above, City staff rigorously assessed the Project description per the
requirements of the City's Municipal Code, as well as its adherence to the standards outlined in CEQA.
Additionally, the City Planning Commission meticulously fulfilled all mandatory environmental review
prerequisites, culminating in their decision to certify the EIR for the project. This certification reaffirms
that the EIR has undergone a comprehensive analysis and has been deemed legally compliant with
applicable regulations and standards.
Summary of Appeal Issues. According to the appeal letter, the aforementioned issues raised by PBV were
not all inclusive. However, the Municipal Code requires the appeal set forth the precise basis and issues.
As such, no further response can be provided without a specific issue being raised. Therefore, based on
the analysis completed and information available, staff believes the record stands for itself and no
additional analysis is warranted.
Planning Commission Authority. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, review by
the Planning Commission of an appealed site plan is limited to a determination of whether or not an
adopted development standard, zoning regulation, or policy applied or not applied to the project was
done consistent with authority granted by City ordinance. No authority is granted to add, delete, change,
or modify adopted standards, regulations, or policies except as required to comply with conditions
necessary to mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts.
After hearing the appeal, the Planning Commission may deny, grant, or partially grant the appeal by
directing changes to the project or to the CEQA document adopted or to the mitigation measures as
necessitated by their findings regarding the issues appealed. All findings, CEQA determinations, and
conditions made by the Development Services Director not appealed to the Planning Commission shall
remain in full force and effect and shall not be modified by the Planning Commission.
The decision by the Planning Commission shall be final. However, any person not satisfied with the
decision of the Planning Commission may, within ten days of the date of that decision, appeal to the City
Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield is the Lead Agency
and determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was appropriate for the project
to adequately analyze the potential impacts of the Project to the existing environment. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, a Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared. Following the required public circulation, the
Planning Commission certified the EIR on September 7, 2023.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield for the appeal was
advertised in the newspaper and posted on the bulletin board of the Bakersfield City Development
Services Department. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified about the
hearing at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with State law.
As of this writing, no public comments have been received.
File SPR No. 21-0399 Page 8
CONCLUSION:
Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, the appellant has failed to set forth the precise
basis and issues on appeal to demonstrate that the Project is contrary to the adopted ordinances,
standards, and policies of the City concerning development of the site. The Site Plan Review Committee
has reviewed the Project and conditioned accordingly to ensure compliance with City development
standards. State agencies have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and there are no comments
on its inadequacy. Additionally, the applicant demonstrated to the Development Services Director that
the Project complies with City requirements in both design and density in accordance with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends your Commission deny the appeal and uphold
the decision of the Development Services Director to approve Site Plan Review No. 21-0399.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
B. Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
C. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
D. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
F. CEQA Section 15091 Findings of Fact and Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
G. Site Plan Review 21-0399
H. Notice of Decision
I. Site Plan Review (SPR) Appeal
J. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Appeal
K. Planning Commission Draft Resolution
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 4, 2023
TO: Chair Bashirtash and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Johnson, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 2023 - Agenda Item No. 6.a. (Appeal for SPR 21-0399)
Public Correspondence
Subsequent to distribution of the staff report for the above-referenced agenda item, staff received correspondence from
(1) Channel Law Group, LLP; (2) Rutan and Tucker, LLP; and (3) Pacific Gas & Electric. The following is a summary of the
comments followed by staff’s response.
Channel Law Group, LLP – Representing Progress for Bakersfield Veterans LLC
• Comment: As representative to the appellant for this agenda item, the commenter stated they did not receive the
public hearing notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
• Response: Staff recognizes the comment and therefore requests your Commission open and continue consideration
of the appeal to a special Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2023.
Rutan and Tucker, LLP - Representing SASD Development Group
• Comment: As representative to the project applicant for this agenda item, the commenter provided background
information on why the Site Plan Review appeal has no merit.
• Response: Comments noted for the record.
Pacific Gas & Electric
• Comment: The commenter provided general information that must be adhered to when working near their facilities
and land rights.
• Response: Staff notes the commentor provided a will-serve letter for the project site that is included as part of the
certified Environmental Impact Report. Nonetheless, the information regarding work near Pacific Gas & Electric
facilities and land rights is noted for the record.
Conclusion
Based on the comment from Channel Law Group, LLP, staff recommends the Site Plan Review Appeal Hearing be opened
and continued to a special Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2023 at 5:30PM in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA. City staff will re-notice the Site Plan Review Appeal Hearing and ensure all
interested parties have received timely notification.
Attachments
• Channel Law Group
• Rutan and Tucker
• Pacific Gas & Electric
Channel Law Group, LLP
8383 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 750
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 347-0050
Fax: (323) 723-3960
www.channellawgroup.com
JULIAN K. QUATTLEBAUM, III Writer’s Direct Line: (310) 982-1760
JAMIE T. HALL * jamie.hall@channellawgroup.com
CHARLES J. McLURKIN
*ALSO Admitted in Texas
October 3, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Bakersfield
Mr. Paul Johnson, Planning Director
pjohnson@bakersfieldcity.us
Mr. Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner II
lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Appeal of Site Plan Review; Project No. 21-0399 (Ward 3)
Gentlemen:
This firm represents Progress for Bakersfield Veterans LLC (“PBV”) with regard to the
Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Medical Clinic (“Project”)
proposed by SASD Development Group, LLC. I am writing to inform the City that the notice
required by law has not been provided for the appeal hearing scheduled for October 5, 2023
before the Planning Commission (“Commission”). Bakersfield Municipal Code Section
17.08.080(E)(2) requires that notice of the public hearing be provided at least 10 days prior to the
appeal hearing. This section of the Code states as follows:
Notice of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten
days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property, the owner’s duly
authorized agent, the project applicant, and the appellant. Notice shall also be mailed to
every person filing with the planning director a written request for notice, and those
within the noticed area if the site plan was initially subject to a public hearing.
Due process “contemplates a meaningful opportunity to present evidence contrary to the
petition and a meaningful consideration of that evidence." Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Fish & Game Com. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1126. My client is prejudiced by the lack of
notice as there is now inadequate time to respond to a 247-page Staff Report that has been
prepared.
2
The City must provide the legal notice required by law. The hearing cannot move
forward with the hearing on October 5, 2023 as a result of this deficiency. Please confirm that
the hearing will be continued as a result of this error. I may be contacted at 310-982-1760 or at
jamie.hall@channellawgroup.com if you have any questions, comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jamie T. Hall
Alan B. Fenstermacher
Direct Dial: (714) 641-3452
E-mail: afenstermacher@rutan.com
October 3, 2023
Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
Irvine , CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714 -546-9035
Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com
2523/036640-0002
19751149.2 a10/03/23
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
commissionercandace@gmail.com
daniel@caterdesigngroup.com
cbittle2007@gmail.com
barbaralomas@sbcglobal.net
Larry.Koman1@gmail.com
zackbash@icloud.com
GurtarKD@gmail.com
Re: October 5, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item 6.a
Appeal for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399
Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic (5512 Knudsen Drive)
Dear Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners:
As you are likely aware from the recent September 7, 2023 Planning Commission hearing,
this office represents SASD Development Group (“SASD”), the applicant for Site Plan Review
No. 21-0399 (“SPR”), which would allow the development of a state-of-the-art 39,648 square foot
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) outpatient medical clinic with associated parking (the
“Project”), located at 5512 Knudsen Drive (the “Property”). The Project is referred to by the VA
as a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (“CBOC”).
The Development Services Director’s approval of the SPR has been appealed by Progress
for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC (“PBV”), the owner of the property where the existing VA clinic is
located at 1801 Westwind (“Appeal”). Consistent with many years of PBV’s obstructionist
activities to block approval of a new VA clinic at any property not owned by PBV, the Appeal has
no merit.
I. The Project is a Permitted Use in its M-2 Zone
PBV’s Appeal relies entirely on the same arguments it has been raising since 2020, and is
chiefly based on PBV’s baseless claim that the Project requires approval of a CUP.1 However, as
addressed in the land use section of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR’s response to comments, and the
City’s staff report regarding this appeal, the Project clearly does not require a CUP, and is
1 The Appeal’s CEQA arguments are not relevant here, as the environmental impact report
(“EIR”) was already certified by the Planning Commission, and is the subject of a separate (but
related) appeal that will be considered by the City Council at a future date. Nonetheless, this office
is confident that the City prepared and certified the EIR in full compliance with CEQA.
Honorable Chair and Planning
Commissioners
October 3, 2023
Page 2
2523/036640-0002
19751149.2 a10/03/23
consistent with the Service Industrial General Plan designation. (See, Draft EIR [“DEIR”], pp. 2.5
to 2.10; Ch. 4.10, pp. 4.10-8 to -16; Final EIR [“FEIR”], pp. F-110, F-114 to -115.)
There is no dispute that the Project site’s 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 zones. (Bakersfield Municipal
Code (“BMC”) §§ 17.30.020(A) [M-2 permits “[a]ny use permitted in the M-1 zone”];
17.28.020(A) [M-1 zone permits “[a]ny use permitted in the C-O, C-1 and C-2 zones”].) There is
also no dispute that 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 Project. (BMC
§ 17.20.020(A)(21) [emph. added].) Notably, this use description expressly includes psychiatric
clinics as part of the overall permitted use, contrary to Appellant’s arguments that mental health
services somehow trigger a CUP. The C-O zone also permits “medical and dental laboratories”
and “pharmacies, in conjunction with medical clinics.” (Id., subdiv. (22), (25).)
Medical (and psychiatric) clinics and offices are not specifically defined in the City’s
Municipal Code, but as stated in the staff report, 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 Project would only
be open from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and closed all nights and weekends. City staff’s interpretation of
its own zoning code, which it is charged with implementing, is entitled to significant deference.
(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.)
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 zone (BMC
§ 17.28.030(A)(6)), Appellant wrongly contends that a CUP was required here. 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.” (Id., § 17.04.340 [emph. added].) As made plain by the foregoing definition,
a CUP is required for any medical use that involves an overnight stay, but not a medical clinic that
operates only during business hours.
Appellant’s attempts to focus on the Municipal Code’s use of the terms “contagious” and
“mental, drug or liquor addiction cases” ignores the preceding clause, which discusses those types
of cases in the context of overnight hospitals and sanitariums. (BMC § 17.28.030(A)(6).) 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),
Honorable Chair and Planning
Commissioners
October 3, 2023
Page 3
2523/036640-0002
19751149.2 a10/03/23
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 a critical distinction that City
staff has consistently drawn between 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
Appellant’s property, then zoned M-1, and no CUP was required. Given that the proposed
Project and the existing VA clinic are the exact same use, this further emphasizes the both the
weakness and the disingenuous nature of Appellant’s arguments. In addition to the existing VA
facilities, a number of other medical facilities are permitted in similar industrial General Plan land
use designations and zones:
FACILITY NAME ADDRESS ZONING LAND
USE
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL-SOUTHWEST D/P
APH 5201 White Ln M-1 LI
PLANNED PARENTHOOD - BAKERSFIELD 2535 16Th St M-1 GC
BAKERSFIELD HEALTH SERVICES 609 E 18Th St M-1 LI
JESUS SHACK MOBILE MEDICAL 1326 30Th St M-1 SI
OLD TOWN KERN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER 234 Baker St M-1 LI
PLANNED PARENTHOOD - BAKERSFIELD 2633 16Th St M-1 GC
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL-SOUTHWEST D/P
APH 5201 White Ln M-1 LI
CORAM CVS/SPECIALTY INFUSION SERVICES 3101 Sillect Ave M-1 SI
KERN REHAB, INC. 7420 District
Blvd M-2 SI
CENTRE FOR NEURO SKILLS 5215 Ashe Rd M-2 SI
WHITE LANE DIALYSIS 7701 White Ln M-1 LI
ACCELERATED URGENT CARE 4871 White Ln M-1 LI
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.
Honorable Chair and Planning
Commissioners
October 3, 2023
Page 4
2523/036640-0002
19751149.2 a10/03/23
Finally, while the Project complies with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code and all
other applicable City regulations, there is an argument that, as lessor to the federal government,
SASD is not required to comply with City zoning requirements for the Project. (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.) Under federal law, the VA is only required to consider local substantive land
use and zoning laws. (40 U.S.C. § 3312(c); see also 41 C.F.R. § 102-76.20(c).) Local officials
may recommend measures necessary to satisfy local zoning and building ordinances, but the VA
is not bound to comply with the recommendations. (40 U.S.C. §§ 3312(e), (f).) However, here,
SASD has agreed to comply with all City regulations, zoning and otherwise.
II. The Appellant Has No Credibility, and All Arguments Should be Considered With its
Ulterior Motive in Mind
As this office has noted before, while PBV has alleged concerns over the environmental
impacts of the Project and other land use arguments (now through their third attorney on this
matter), it is all pretext for delaying construction and operation of the Project, which will stop a
significant income stream for PBV – i.e., monthly rent from the VA. As detailed in this office’s
letters to the City in 2021, and in the EIR itself, PBV’s opposition to the Project has not been
limited to the City’s entitlement process, but has included all stages of the federal bidding and
environmental review processes as well. All of those efforts to oppose the Project have been
rejected. (See, DEIR, pp. 1-3, 1-13 to -14; 3-2, 6-3 to 6-5; FEIR, Attachment J.)
The fact that the Appeal is merely a regurgitation of previous (failed) efforts is
demonstrated in the Appeal’s second heading, which references a concurrent appeal of a mitigated
negative declaration (“MND”), yet an EIR was prepared here, with an MND was prepared for the
previous version of the Project in 2021. Likewise, PBV’s letter submitted prior to this
Commission’s consideration and certification of the EIR at its September 7, 2023 meeting only
referenced its previous comments on the DEIR, without any new comments or information. This
letter also failed to comment on the FEIR, even though the FEIR directly responded to all of PBV’s
previous comments on the DEIR. Finally, no representative from PBV even bothered to attend –
much less speak – at the Commission’s September 7, 2023 hearing.
In light of the foregoing, SASD requests that the Commission consider the source when
reviewing any comments submitted on behalf of PBV, and specifically, its anti-competitive, profit
driven ulterior motive. It is a shame that critical services needed by the veteran community have
been delayed as long as they have as a result of these “greenmail” activities to date. (See, Exhibit
1.) If PBV actually cared about the issues they raised, they would at least attend the public hearings
on the Project, rather than submit criticisms in writing only, from afar.
Honorable Chair and Planning
Commissioners
October 3, 2023
Page 5
2523/036640-0002
19751149.2 a10/03/23
SASD looks forward to commencing construction of the Project as soon as possible
following the City’s approval. Jayson Parsons from this office will be present at the October 5,
2023 hearing on behalf of SASD, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Alan B. Fenstermacher
cc: Paul Johnson, Planning Director (pjohnson@bakersfieldcity.us)
Louis Ramirez, Associate Planner (lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us)
John Ramirez, Esq.
Jayson Parsons, Esq.
SASD Development Group
Exhibit 1
-2-
-3-
Plan Review Team Land Management
PGEPlanReview@pge.com
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1 Public
October 3, 2023
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution Dear Louis Ramirez, Thank you for submitting the Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure
your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights. Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work
with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building-and-renovation/overview/overview.page. 2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a
conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.
This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Sincerely, Plan Review Team Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2 Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California
excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete
demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of
your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few
areas. Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and
cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded. 4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4. 5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the
edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3 Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation
need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all
plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24
inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment. 7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to
perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other
utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement. If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must
verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in
conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This
includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities. 9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks. 10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow
unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4 Public
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering. 12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is
complete. 13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5 Public
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some
examples/restrictions are as follows: 1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and
eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.” 2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical
reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to-conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure. 3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence
or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E
review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment. 4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric
transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower
legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s)
and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines. 6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed. 7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or
combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6 Public
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement. 9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by
PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by
at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. 12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial
Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to
construction. 13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the
state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
Plan Review Team Land Management
PGEPlanReview@pge.com
Public
October 9, 2023
Re: Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 Dear Louis Ramirez,
Thank you for providing PG&E the opportunity to review the proposed plans for Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 dated 9/29/2023. Our review indicates the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights.
Please note this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for additional future
review as needed. This letter shall not in any way alter, modify, or terminate any provision of any existing easement rights. If there are subsequent modifications made to the design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with
PG&E’s Service Planning department: https://www.pge.com/cco/. As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This
free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and
marked on-site. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at pgeplanreview@pge.com.
Sincerely, PG&E Plan Review Team
Land Management
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _______ RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT MEDICAL CLINIC IN THE M-2 ZONE, LOCATED AT 5512 KNUDSEN DRIVE (SPR NO. 21-0399). WHEREAS, SASD Development Group (LLC) filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department requesting a Site Plan Review to allow a
Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in the M-2 (General
Manufacturing) zone district, located at 5512 Knudsen Drive (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080, the
Project development plans have been reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee for
compliance with codes, policies, and standards for development as adopted by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined the Project would
have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report
was certified by the Planning Commission on September 7, 2023 in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH 2022080337); and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2023, the Development Services Director approved
the Project, with the listed conditions of approval and mitigation measures, in
accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.08.080; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2023, Progress for Bakersfield Veterans, LLC
represented by Channel Law Group, LLP filed an appeal to the Development Services
Director’s decision approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 5, 2023
at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to
consider the appeal, and the project was continued to a special on October 16, 2023 in
order for the public hearing to be re-noticed: and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Monday, October 16, 2023
at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to
consider the appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided
in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester
Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials
upon which the environmental determination is based; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the Planning Commission considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report and the
Director’s action.
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the facts presented and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the
Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general
circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff
determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA. An Environmental
Impact Report was prepared and certified by the Planning Commission.
3. The appellant has not demonstrated the Project does not meet City
design/development standards, City municipal code requirements, or
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as
follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The decision of the Development Services Director is hereby upheld as
contained in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein .
3. The appeal is denied and Site Plan Review No. 21-0399 is hereby approved.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a special meeting held on the 16th day
of October 2023, on a motion by Commissioner __________ and seconded by
Commissioner__________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED
_______________________________________
ZACHARY BASHIRTASH, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached):
Exhibit A: Site Plan Review Decision
SPR 21-0399 Page | 3 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
SPR 21-0399
IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
The project is subject to a variety of conditions of approval. These include conditions based on adopted City plans
and policies, those determined through site plan review, those determined through environmental review
essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, and recommended conditions for development that are not essential to health, safety, and welfare,
but would on the whole enhance the project and its relationship to the neighborhood and environment. The
following conditions include specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be
allowed occupancy. In addition, there are informational items included to alert you to specific fees and/or
requirements moving through the development permitting process.
REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED PLAN
Any time after site plan approval but before the approval expires, you may submit revisions to the plan. We will
treat these revisions as a new site plan application subject to a new review and required fees. The Planning
Director can only approve minor changes to the original plan without a new application if they are necessary to
meet a condition, mitigation, or result from physical obstacles or other comparable constraints (See Section
17.08.080.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Site plan approval is based on the statements made in the application and the plans you submitted. Any errors or
omissions on these plans could alter the compliance list and/or void this decision. If you have questions about
any of the items noted in the Conditions of Approval, you must speak to the contact person representing the
department requiring that item.
For conditions that require compliance prior to a building permit, or other permit issuance, provide the
appropriate documentation as evidence of compliance with your building permit submittal.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 4 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to
related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or
property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and
boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands
whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind
whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including
without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions
whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by
the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether
any other permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this
condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion,
shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and
expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by
another entity or party.
2. Project approval is conditioned upon acceptance of the conditions of approval contained herein,
as evidenced by the applicant’s signature on the Acknowledgement and Acceptance portion of
the Conditions of Approval.
3. This site plan expires 2 years from the decision date, unless building permits have been issued, or
where the use has commenced on projects not requiring a building permit. The project must be
completed within 5 years from the decision date. If the property is rezoned, site plan approval
will expire upon the effective date for the rezoning unless the use is permitted in the new zone.
The Planning Director may extend the expiration date up to one (1) year if you resubmit new plans
for check against the code requirements in effect at that time and include a written request for
the extension. We must receive this request before expiration of the project approval. We will
not require a fee for this extension request; however, changes to the plans originally approved for
purposes other than code requirements shall be subject to a new site plan review, including
payment of all required fees (See Section 17.08.080.D of the Zoning Ordinance).
SPR 21-0399 Page | 5 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
4. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner, operator, and/or management to ensure that
any required permits, inspections, and approvals from any regulatory agency be obtained from
the applicable agency prior to issuance of a building permit and/or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(661-326-3720 or DEVBld@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
2. Building permits are required for all construction on site. Submit plans for review and approval
prior to obtaining all required permits for construction of the project.
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff Contact – Mark Fick; 661-326-3790 or mfick@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Prior to review of improvement plans by the City, the developer shall submit a grading plan for
the proposed site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official
(Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.44.010). With the grading plan, if the project is subject to
the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a Notice of Intent
(NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 99-08-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water Resources
Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity. Compliance with
the general permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared,
continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection during normal construction
hours.
2. A grading permit is required prior to final plan approval. The developer shall submit four (4) copies
of grading plans and two (2) copies of the preliminary soils report to the Building Division. A final
soils report shall also be submitted to the Building Division before they can issue a building permit.
Please note that grading plans must be consistent with the final building site plans and landscaping
plans. Building permits will not be issued until the grading permit is approved by the Building
Division, Planning Division (HCP), and Public Works Department.
3. Show on the final building plan pedestrian access from the public way and accessible parking.
Private streets are not the public way.
4. The developer shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building plans for
all exterior walls of any building that is within the distance as set forth in Table 602 of the California
Building Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 6 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. Include with or show on the final building plans information necessary to verify that the project
complies with all accessibility requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Code.
6. The developer shall obtain all required approvals from the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department (2700 “M” Street, Bakersfield, CA., 93301; PH 661-862-8700) for any food
handling facility (i.e.: market, delicatessen, café, concession, restaurant) before building permits
can be issued.
7. Buildings or structures shall require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system where
required by current California Building Code and City ordinance.
8. The Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fee at the
time they issue a building permit.
9. Final Building plans shall show pedestrian access pathways or easements for persons with
disabilities from public rights-of-ways that connect to all accessible buildings, facilities, elements,
and spaces in accordance with the California Building Code. These pedestrian access ways shall
not be parallel to vehicular lanes unless separated by curbs or railings.
10. Prior to granting occupancy, the Building Division will verify that a water meter serving the
development is in place. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer contact the applicable
water purveyor to inquire about their process for obtaining water service for the development as
soon as possible. To determine who the water purveyor for the development is, you may contact
the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA,
phone: 661-326-3715).
11. Show on the final building plan, electric vehicle supply equipment to facilitate future installation
as required by the California Green Code.
12. An acoustical consultant, approved by the Building Division, shall be contacted to prepare and
include with the final building plans measure that mitigate noise exposures for all buildings on the
project site that are subject to noise levels of 65 db or greater as delineated by the CNEL contour
maps of the city. These implementation measures shall comply with the requirements of Title 24
of the California Building Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 7 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
C. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff contact – Louis Ramirez; 661-326-3023 or lramirez@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The minimum parking required for this project has been computed based on use and shall be as
follows:
Proposed Square Parking Required
Use Footage Ratio Parking
Medical clinic 39,648 SF 1 space/200 SF 198 spaces
Required Parking: 198 spaces
(Note: There are 214 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. By ordinance, compact and
tandem spaces cannot be counted towards meeting minimum parking requirements. For
commercial development containing a multi-tenant pad, any change in use where 50 percent or
more of the pad requires additional parking pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Section 17.58.110,
the Planning Director may require parking commensurate with the new use.)
2. Minimum parking stall dimensions shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long and shall be designed
according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer. Vehicles may hang over landscape
areas no more than 2-1/2 feet provided required setbacks along street frontages are maintained,
and trees and shrubs are protected from vehicles.
3. All parking lots, driveways, drive aisles, loading areas, and other vehicular access ways, shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other paved street surfacing material in accordance
with the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 and 17.58.060.A.).
4. Lighting is required for all parking lots, except residential lots with four units or less (Section
17.58.060.A.). Illumination shall be evenly distributed across the parking area with light fixtures
designed and arranged so that light is directed downward and is reflected away from adjacent
properties and streets. Use of glare shields or baffles may be required for glare reduction or
control of back light. No light poles, standards and fixtures, including bases or pedestals, shall
exceed a height of 40 feet above grade. However, light standards placed less than 50 feet from
residentially zoned or designated property, or from existing residential development, shall not
exceed a height of 15 feet. The final building plans shall include a picture or diagram of the light
fixtures being used and show how light will be directed onto the parking area.
(Note: Staff can require additional adjustments to installed lighting after occupancy to resolve
glare or other lighting problems if they negatively affect adjacent properties.)
SPR 21-0399 Page | 8 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. The developer shall include a copy of a final landscape plan with each set of the final building plans
submitted to the Building Division. Building permits will not be issued until the Planning Division
has approved the final landscape plan for consistency with approved site plans and minimum
ordinance standards. Please refer to the landscaping requirements in Chapter 17.61. Landscape
plans shall include, but are not limited to, data on: gallon/box size, spacing, species (reference
approved parking lot tree list), ratio of deciduous vs. evergreen, shade calculations, ground cover
calculations, etc.
(Note 1: At the time a final site inspection is conducted, it is expected that plants will match the
species identified and be installed in the locations consistent with the approved landscape plan.
Changes made without prior approval of the Planning staff may result in the removal and/or
relocation of installed plant materials and delays in obtaining building occupancy.)
(Note 2: No mature landscaping shall be removed without prior approval by the Planning
Director.)
6. Business identification signs are neither considered nor approved under this review (e.g. wall,
monument, pylon, etc.). A separate sign permit reviewed by the Planning and Building Divisions
and issued by the Building Division, is required for all new signs, including future use and
construction signs.
(Note: Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance; Chapter 17.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code. Review this Chapter as part of due diligence.)
7. Refuse collection bin enclosures and container areas are subject to all required structural setback
from street frontages, and shall not reduce any parking, loading or landscaping areas as required
by the Zoning Ordinance.
8. In the event a previously undocumented oil/gas well is uncovered or discovered on the project,
the developer is responsible to contact the California Geologic Energy Management Division
(CalGEM). The developer is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by
CalGEM. The developer shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080.B.
(Note: A capped well is near Street “A”. Prior to the approval of Public Works plans, the applicant
shall provide the location of the capped well to the Public Works Department and resolve any
adverse impacts to the public and site improvements.)
9. The developer shall meet all regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(Regulation VIII) concerning dust suppression during construction of the project. Methods
include, but are not limited to; use of water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants to control dust
emission from disturbed area, stock piles, and access ways; covering or wetting materials that are
transported off-site; limit construction-related speed to 15 mph on all unpaved areas/washing of
construction vehicles before they enter public streets to minimize carryout/track out; and cease
grading and earth moving during periods of high winds (20 mph or more).
SPR 21-0399 Page | 9 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
10. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division (staff
contact noted above) for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting and
other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items have
been installed. Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the Planning
Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site occupancy.
11. All professional biologists conducting survey work for the project shall be qualified to conduct the
type of survey work they will be performing.
12. All mitigation measures included in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for SPR No. 21-
0399 are hereby incorporated.
D. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff Contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or emedina@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Show on the final building plans the following items:
a. All fire lanes. Any modifications shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire lane
identification signs shall be installed every 100 feet with red curbing when curbing is
required. All work shall be completed before occupancy of any building or portion of any
building is allowed. Identify the fire lane and include the fire lane width, also show the
width of secondary entrance on each side of the island and include the turning radius on
the site plan sheet plan.
b. All fire hydrants, both offsite (nearest to site) and on-site. Include flow data on all
hydrants. Hydrants shall be in good working condition and are subject to testing for
verification. Fire flow requirements must be met prior to construction commencing on
the project site. Please provide two (2) sets of the water plans stamped by a licensed
Registered Civil Engineer to the Fire Department and two (2) sets to the Water Resources
Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA. 93311; 661-326-3715).
(Note: Show: 1) distance to the nearest hydrant; and 2) distance from that hydrant to the
farthest point of the project site.)
c. All fire sprinkler and/or stand pipe systems, fire alarms and commercial hood systems.
These suppression systems require review and permits by the Fire Department. The Fire
Department will issue guidelines for these various items as they may apply to this project.
d. Project address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a shopping
or business center, note the name and address of the center.
e. Name and phone number of the appropriate contact person.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 10 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
2. The developer must pay required fees to and request an inspection from the Water Resources
Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA, phone: 661-326-3715) for any underground
sprinkler feeds at least 2 full business days before they are buried. The Prevention Services
Division (2101 H Street, Bakersfield CA, Ph. 661/326-3979) must complete all on-site inspections
of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems before any building is occupied.
3. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be
installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction.
4. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire
department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete
or other driving surface approved by the fire chief. Must be capable of supporting the imposed
load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the first lift of
asphalt as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All access (Permanent and temporary) to
and around any building under construction must be a least 20 feet wide (26 feet wide where
building height exceeds 30 feet), with an overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and contain no
obstruction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the
facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
5. Turning Radius: The minimum turning radius shall be thirty-seven feet.
6. The developer shall submit two (2) sets of plans for permits and approvals from the Fire
Department for fuel tanks or related facilities before they are installed on the site. Please contact
the Prevention Services Division at 661-326-3979 for further information.
7. If you handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste on the site, the Prevention Services Division
may require a hazardous material management and/or risk management plan before you can
begin operations. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
8. If you store hazardous materials on the site in either an underground or a permanent
aboveground storage tank, a permit from the Prevention Services Division is required to install
and operate these tanks. The Prevention Services Division may also require a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan for storage of petroleum products above ground in quantities
of 1,320 gallons or more. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
9. All projects must comply with the current California Fire Code and current City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 11 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
E. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road)
(Staff contact - Tylor Hester; 661-326-3715 or THester@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Property is located outside of the City of Bakersfield domestic water service area, therefore, only
pipelines and appurtenances related to fire water are subject to review.
2. Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer
to the Water Resources Department showing all offsite and onsite improvements, including
connections to the existing water main and underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses.
Include any existing nearby on or off-site hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along
with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans
shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of
Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are
available for download from the City’s website at
www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/water_resources/fees.htm
3. Developer shall pay the required Water Resources Fire Service Inspection Fees and submit an
Inspection Request Form for any underground fire waterlines and their apparatuses at least two
(2) full business days before permanent construction. The form is available for download from
the City’s website at www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/water_resources/fees.htm
F. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The developer shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street/alley paving
along Landco Drive, Street “A”, and portions of Knudsen Drive per Recorded Agreement 04-274,
according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
2. The developer shall install streetlights along Knudsen Drive, Landco Drive, and Street ”A” as per
Standard ST-23.6. The developer shall be responsible for providing the labor and materials
necessary to energize all newly installed streetlights before occupancy of the building or site.
Submit street light location and contact the Public Works Department at (661) 326-3584 for street
light number.
3. The developer shall construct standard accessible ramps at the northeast corner of Knudsen Drive
and Street “A” and at the northwest corner of Landco Drive, and Street “A” according to adopted
city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the
Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 12 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
4. The developer shall install new connection(s) to the public sewer system. This connection shall
be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits
will be issued.
5. All on-site areas required to be paved (i.e. parking lots, access drives, loading areas, etc.) shall
consist of concrete, asphaltic concrete (Type B. A. C.) or other paved street material approved by
the City Engineer. Pavement shall be a minimum thickness of 2 inches over 3 inches of approved
base material (i.e. Class II A. B.) if concrete is used, it shall be a minimum thickness of 4 inches per
Municipal Code Section 17.58.060.A. This paving standard shall be noted on the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
6. If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued until the
grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division.
7. All storm water generated on the project site, including the street frontage shall be retained onsite
unless otherwise allowed by the Public Works Department (please contact the Public Works
Department – Subdivisions at 661-326-3576). Construction of permanent drainage facility shall be
in accordance with Recorded Agreement 04-274 or as otherwise approved by both the applicant
and Public Works Director.
8. If the project generates industrial waste, it shall be subject to the requirements of the Industrial
Waste Ordinance. An industrial waste permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department before issuance of the building permit. To find out what type of waste is considered
industrial, please contact the Wastewater Treatment Superintendent at 661-326-3249.
9. Before any building or site can be occupied, the developer must reconstruct or repair substandard
off-site street improvements that front the site to adopted city standards as directed by the City
Engineer. Please call the Construction Desk at 661-326-3049 to schedule a site inspection to find
out what improvements may be required prior to submitting a grading plan. Any off-site/frontage
improvements or repairs required during the site inspection shall be shown on the grading plan.
10. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be done
within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this site plan
review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit.
11. A sewer connection fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. We will base this fee
at the rate in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
12. If the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (SWRCB Order No. 2009-009-DWQ as
SPR 21-0399 Page | 13 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) must be filed with the State Water
Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity.
Compliance with the general permit required that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection
during normal construction hours.
13. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, or if no building permit is required, the first required
City approval prior to construction, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the applicable
approval is issued or in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, as applicable. The Public Works
Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of construction plans for
the project.
14. The developer shall form a new Maintenance District. Undeveloped parcels within an existing
Maintenance District are required to update Maintenance District documents. Updated
documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. If there
are questions, contact Stephan Trujillo at 661-326-3576.
(Note: If already within a maintenance district, may need to update the maintenance district
form.)
16. The developer shall install a full-sized manhole in each sewer line except residential development
before it connects to the sewer main. This manhole is to be located within the property being
developed and must be easily accessible by City workers.
G. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Street return type approaches, if used, shall have 20-foot minimum radius returns with a 19-ft to
36-foot throat width. All dimensions shall be shown on the final building plans.
2. Two-way drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. If perpendicular (90º) parking spaces
are proposed where a vehicle must back into these aisles, the minimum aisle width shall be 25
feet. All drive aisle dimension shall be shown on the final building plans.
3. Show the typical parking stall dimension on the final building plans (minimum stall size is 9 feet x
18 feet and shall be designed according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer).
4. Walls, fences, or trash enclosures within 10 feet of a sidewalk at an alley or driveway shall not
exceed 3 feet in height above the curb flow line. You must either revise the circulation design or
show on the final building plans that the maximum fence/wall height will not exceed three feet.
SPR 21-0399 Page | 14 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
5. The developer shall dedicate additional road right-of-way to the City of Bakersfield along Landco
Drive and Street ”A” to full local street width according to adopted city standards with the grading
plan submittal. Street ”A” shall be dedicated by an easement or other acceptable instrument as a
public local street built to City standards, as approved by the City Engineer.
6. The developer shall dedicate any sidewalk extending out of the right of way to the City of
Bakersfield for the pedestrian way along all arterial streets. This must be conducted with a
separate instrument or final map.
7. On Knudsen Drive, striping for left turn channelization shall be provided for any access leading to
a development which, at build out, generates more than 50 peak hour trips.
H. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff Contact - Jesus Carrera; 661-326-3114 or jcarrera@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or work
begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the collection of
refuse and/or recycled materials. Collection locations must provide enough containment area for
the refuse that is generated without violating required zoning or setback restrictions (see Planning
Division conditions). Levels of service are based on how often collection occurs as follows:
Cart service -- 1 cubic yard/week or less 1 time per week
Front loader bin services -- 1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day
Roll-off compactor service -- More than 12 cubic yards/day
2. Show on the final building plans refuse/recycle bin enclosures. Each enclosure shall be designed
according to adopted city standard (Detail # ST-27 and ST-28), at the size checked below .
Before occupancy of the building or site is allowed, 2, 3-cubic yard front loading type
refuse/recycle bin(s) shall be placed within the required enclosure(s).
__________6' deep x 8' wide (1 bin) _________8' deep x 15' wide (3 bins)
_________8' deep x 10' wide (2 bins) _________8' deep x 20' wide (4 bins)
One, 8' deep x 10' wide (inside dimension); on skids for direct stab only (1-6 yard
recycling bin)
(Note: All measurements above are curb-to-curb dimensions inside the enclosure. If both refuse
and recycling containers are to be combined in the same enclosure area, this area must be
expanded in size to accommodate multiple containers/bins - contact the staff person above for
the appropriate enclosure size.)
SPR 21-0399 Page | 15 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
3. Examples of enclosure styles can be found on (Detail # ST-32).
4. Show on the final building plans one compactor roll-off bin location(s), designed according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST-30 and ST-31). Please contact staff for additional information
on compactor requirements and placement.
5. Facilities that require infectious waste services shall obtain approval for separate infectious waste
storage areas from the Kern County Health Department. In no instances shall the refuse bin area
be used for infectious waste containment purposes.
6. Facilities that require grease containment must provide a storage location that is separate from
the refuse bin location. This shall be shown on the final building plans. If a grease interceptor is
to be used instead of a grease containment bin, the plans must still show the location of an
adequately sized enclosure should a grease containment bin be required at a future date. The
grease containment bin shall not share the same enclosure as the refuse/recyclable/organic bin
enclosure.
7. Facilities with existing refuse service must improve the service location area(s) according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST-27 and ST-28). These improvements shall be clearly shown on
the final building plans.
8. If utilities are incorporated into the enclosure design, they shall not interfere with space provided
for refuse bins and must provide sufficient protection measures to guard the utilities from
damage.
9. Enclosures shall not be located in an area that would cause refuse trucks to interfere with drive
thru traffic flow entering or exiting the site, drive thru lanes, etc.
10. Businesses are required to have sufficient capacity of refuse/recycling/organic material storage to
go without service for 1 day (Sunday). At any time refuse/recycling/organic services become an
issue, businesses shall construct a second refuse enclosure to meet the demand. The second
enclosure shall be approved by the City prior to construction.
11. Revise the site plan to make the trash enclosure accessible to the refuse truck. City trucks may
not drive down dead-end corridors, nor back-up long distances; therefore, a turn-around area
shall be provided.
Attachment
Recorded Agreement 04-274
SPR 21-0399 Page | 16 of 16
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PROJECT APPLICANT:
I agree to the project’s conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with any and all
conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
Signature Date
Print Name
AGREEME.T.O. 0 4- 2 ? 4
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
SEP 2 2 2004THISAGREEMENTismadeandenteredintoon , by and
between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation, ("CITY" herein) and TOM
AND LISA CAROSELLA, husband and wife, and GENE D. BOREL AND JERRY L. BOREL,
Co-Trustees ("OWNERS" herein).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, OWNERS desire to annex OWNERSS' real property, which is described
as APN 365-020-30 (Carosella) and APN 365-020-28 (Borel) (hereafter, the "Subject
Properties"); and
WHEREAS, This agreement is a product of negotiations and is in lieu of potential
eminent domain proceedings and includes any and all claims by SELLER for compensation
arising from this transaction including, but not limited to relocation assistance benefits.
WHEREAS, OWNERS will not protest the annexation of the Subject Property into the
CITY, based on certain assurances as stated below made by the CITY; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 may require that before CITY can annex the subject
property, the OWNERS must approve the imposition or extension of any assessment or tax
which is imposed on similarly situated properties within the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and OWNERS
mutually agree as follows:
1. ANNEXATION TO CITY. OWNERS hereby consent to and waive any protest
rights to the annexation of the subject property to the CITY as shown by the attached "Official
Assessment Ballot" signed by OWNERS.
2. PURCHASE OF KNUDSEN DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. CITY agrees to purchase
the necessary right of way for the full width of future Knudsen Drive along the westerly
boundary of APN 365-020-28, described in Exhibit "A", at a cost of $4.00 per square foot, for a
total purchase price of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY
EIGHT DOLLARS ($264,148). This price is a product of negotiations and includes any and all
claims by SELLER for compensation arising from this transaction. Prior to the close of escrow
BUYER shall deposit the purchase price and closing costs into an escrow account with
Chicago Title Insurance Company, herein "Escrow Holder", located at Maria Bernat.
3. BUYER'S CONTINGENCIES. The closing of this transaction is contingent upon
the satisfaction or waiver of the following contingencies. Each of these contingencies must be
satisfied prior to any obligation of the BUYER to become effective. The failure to complete
these contingencies within the time stated, or within any mutually-agreed extended time, shall
terminate this Agreement with no liability of BUYER for any direct or consequential damages:
G:\GROU PDAT~ADMINRPT~.004\08-18~Annexation Agmt.doc Page I of 7
3.1 Marketable fee simple title. SELLER specifically recognizes that
BUYER=s agreement to purchase The Property is contingent upon SELLER=s ability to
provide clear marketable fee simple title as defined in this Agreement. It shall be the
BUYER=s decision whether or not this contingency has been satisfied. BUYER shall issuewrittenapprovalofacurrentPreliminaryTitleReportCPTR") concerning The PropertyissuedbytheEscrowHolder, as well as all documents referred to in the PTR or this
Agreement (the "underlying documents"), and the issuance by the Escrow Holder of a title
policy. SELLER shall cause the PTR and all underlying documents to be delivered toBUYERpromptlyafterthedateofagreement. BUYER's approval is to be given within ten
10) days after receipt of said PTR and legible copies of all underlying documents. The
disapproval by BUYER of any monetary encumbrance, which by the terms of the
Agreement is not to remain against The Property after the closing, shall not be considered
a failure of this condition, as SELLER shall have the obligation, at SELLER's expense, to
satisfy and remove such disapproved monetary encumbrance at or before the closing;
3.2 Documents. The delivery of all documents and the due performance bySELLERofeachandeveryundertakingandagreementtobeperformedbySELLERunderthisAgreement;
3.3Material Change. No material change, as hereinafter defined, shall have
occurred with respect to The Property which has not been approved in writing by BUYER.For purposes of this Agreement, a "material change" shall be a change in the status of the
use, occupancy, tenants or condition of The Property as reasonably expected by the
BUYER, that occurs after the date of this Agreement and prior to the close of escrow.
BUYER shall have twenty (20) days following receipt of written notice from any source of
any such material change within which to approve or disapprove same. Unless otherwise
notified in writing by either party, Escrow Holder shall assume that no material change has
occurred prior to the close of escrow;
3.4No Existing Leases and Tenancy Statements. SELLER represents that
there are no leases, subleases or rental arrangements (herein the "existing leases");
3.5Other Agreements. SELLER shall within fifteen (15) working days of thedateofthisAgreementprovideBUYERwithlegiblecopiesofallotheragreementsknown
to SELLER that will affect The Property after the closing;
3.6Unrecorded Title Matters. SELLER has no actual knowledge of anyencumbrances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, licenses, liens, charges or
other matters which affect the title of The Property that are not recorded in the Official
Records of the Kern County Recorder;
3.7Possessory Rights. SELLER has no knowledge that anyone or any entitywill, at the time of the closing, have any right to possession of The Property, except asdisclosedbytheSELLERinwritingtoBUYER.
All of the above contingencies are for the benefit of, and may be waived in
writing by, BUYER and may be elsewhere herein referred to as "BUYER's contingencies."
G:\GROUPDATxADM INR PTX2004\08-18~Annexation Agmt.doc Page 2 of 7
4. SELLER'S WARRANTIES. SELLER hereby makes the following warranties and
representations to BUYER which shall survive the closing and delivery of the grant deed for a
period of five (5) years:
4.'1 Authority of SELLER. SELLER warrants and represents that they are the
sole owners, in fee simple, of and have the right and legal ability to transfer said Property totheBUYERassetforthinthisAgreement;
4.2 Hazardous Substances. SELLER has no knowledge, except as otherwisedisclosedtoBUYERinwriting, of the existence or prior existence on The Property of anyhazardoussubstance, nor of the existence or prior existence of any above or below-groundstoragetank(s);
4.3Legal Proceedings. SELLER has no knowledge of any actions, lawsuits
or proceedings pending or threatened before any commission, board, bureau, agency,arbitrator, court or tribunal that would affect The Property or the right to occupy or utilize
same;
4.4Bankruptcy Proceedings. SELLER is not the subject of a bankruptcy,insolvency or probate proceeding and has no notice or knowledge that any tenant, lessee
or other person/entity possessing an interest in The Property is the subject of a bankruptcyorinsolvencyproceeding.
5. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE, SELLER agrees to convey to BUYER marketable
fee simple title to The Property free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens,encumbrances, assessments, easements, licenses, leases and taxes, excepting those agreedtoinwritingbyBUYER. The amount of any bond or assessment which is a lien shall be paidbySELLER, subject to approval of title report. SELLER shall execute a Grant Deed which
conveys clear title to The Property to BUYER and deliver same to Escrow Holder within fifteen
15) days of the opening of escrow. Any and all water and mineral rights accruing to The
Property shall also be transferred to BUYER without reservation.
6. CLOSING COSTS. BUYER shall be responsible for all normal and reasonable
escrow fees, including the costs of title insurance. SELLER shall be responsible for the costs
to clear title and all real property taxes and assessments accruing up to the close of escrow.
SELLER shall fully pay the amount of any bond or assessment which is a lien upon The
Property prior to the close of escrow.
7. ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, Within fifteen (15) working days of execution of this
Agreement by all parties, each shall deliver to the Escrow Holder any appropriately executed
escrow instructions or file a written protest detailing what instructions are not acceptable. This
Agreement shall serve as the parties' instructions to the Escrow Holder and shall become partoftheescrowinstructionsforconsummationofthepurchaseandsaleofTheProperty.BUYER and SELLER agree to execute such additional and supplementary instructions as maybeappropriateorrequiredbyEscrowHoldertocomplywiththetermsofthisAgreement;provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and any additional
or supplementary escrow instructions, the terms of this Agreement shall control, unless the
parties jointly agree to the contrary. Said escrow instructions are incorporated herein by this
reference.
G:\OROIJPDA'I~ADNIINRPT~OO4~OS-18~Ani3cxation Agmt.doc Page 3 o~' 7 ;i ''
8. CLOSING DATE. Escrow shall close no later than ten (10) days after the
satisfaction of all contingencies set forth herein, unless extended by mutual written agreement
of both parties. In no event shall the escrow close less than ninety (90) days from execution of
this Agreement by all parties, unless by mutual agreement of all parties.
9. POSSESSION OF SELLER=S PARCEL. SELLER agrees to give possession of
The Property to BUYER at the close of escrow.
10. DEDICATION OF KUNDSEN DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. OWNERS agree to
dedicate to CiTY necessary right of way for future Knudsen Drive along the westerly boundary
of APN 365-020-30 as described in Exhibit "B".
11. KNUDSEN DRIVE CONSTRUCTION. CITY agrees to construct Knudsen Drive
as shown in Exhibit "C". OWNER agrees to allow Knudsen Drive drainage to be disposed of
on OWNER'S property in a temporary sump which will be maintained by CITY. Prior to any
development on OWNER'S property, CITY will construct permanent drainage facilities, remove
temporary drainage basin and construct permanent disposal facilities outside of OWNER'S of
property, at CITY'S expense.
12. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a
provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a
provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
13. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This contract sets forth the entire Agreement
between the parties and supersedes alt other oral or written representations. This contract
may be modified only in a writing approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.
14. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any party prior to the
initiation of any of the work detailed above, and prior to the initiation of annexation
proceedings, upon ten days written notice, served by mail or personal service, to all other
parties.
15. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution of the Agreement
and Ballot Measure attached hereto as Exhibit "A." This Agreement is the product of
negotiation and therefore shall not be construed against any party.
16. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in wdting and
shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon actual
personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as
follows, or at any other address designated by notice:
CITY:CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
OWNERS:TOM AND LISA CAROSELLA
1412 17TH STREET
Bakersfield, California 93301
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~004~08-18~Annexafion Agmt.dcc Page 4 of 7
GENE D. BOREL
6502 YOSEMITE PLACE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93309
JERRY L. BOREL
8918 ETCHART ROAD
BAKERSFIELD CA 93312
17. GOVERNING LAW. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or
growing out of, this contract shall be instituted in Kern County, California.
18. ASSIGNMENT. This contract shall not be assigned by any party, or any partysubstituted, without prior written consent of all the parties.
19. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure tothebenefitof, and be binding upon, the parties to the contract and their heirs, administrators,executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
20. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this AgreementrepresentsandwarrantstheyaredulyauthorizedtoexecuteanddeliverthisAgreementonbehalfofthecorporationororganization, if any, named herein and this Agreement is bindinguponsaidcorporationororganizationinaccordancewithitsterms.
21. TAX EFFECT. This transaction is in lieu of eminent domain action. However,none of the parties (nor such parties' counsel or accountants) has made or is making in this
Agreement any representation to any other party (or such party's counsel or accountants)concerning any of the tax effects or consequences on the other party of the transactionsprovidedforinthisAgreement. Each party represents that it has obtained, or may obtain,independent tax advice with respect thereto and upon which it, if so obtained, has solely relied.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed, the day and year first-above written.
CITY"
By:
Mayor
G:\GROUPDAT~ADM INR1'1%2004~08-18~Anncxafion Agmt.doc
TOM CAROSELLA _. _...--.,
G/ENE D. BOREL
Page 5 of 7 ~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENARRO
City Attorney
ERRY ~f~BC~REI
ALAI~I-I~AI~
Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
By:~_ ,~---/~/.~.
Development Servic/A~rector
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
By:
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
COUNTERSIGNED:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
By:
GREGORY J. KLIMKO
Finance Director
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPTX2004~08-18kAnnexation Agmt.doc Page 6 of 7
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
IMPORTANT - OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSESSMENT BALLOT
This assessment ballot is for the use of property OWNERS of the parcel(s) identified below, which parcel(s) is
proposed to be annexed into the City of Bakersfield.
This assessment ballot may be used to express either support for or opposition to inclusion within the proposed
annexation and the extension or imposition of any tax or assessment currently being levied by the City of
Bakersfield. In order to be counted, this assessment ballot must be signed below by an OWNER or, if the
OWNERS are not individuals, by an authorized representative of the OWNERS.
TO CAST THIS BALLOT, PLEASE RETURN THIS ENTIRE PAGE
OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOT
OWNERS: TOM AND LISA CAROSELLA AND
GENE D. BOREL AND JERRY L. BOREL
Property Description: APN 365-020- AND APN 30 365-020-28
Individual taxes or assessments shall not exceed those taxes or assessments levied on
similarly situated properties within the City of Bakersfield as of the date of the
execution of this ballot.
ASSESSMENT BALLOT MEASURE
Shall the City Council of the City of Bakersfield
include the above described property within the
proposed annexation and levy individual taxes and
assessments not to exceed those taxes or assessments
levied on similarly situated properties with the City
of Bakersfield as of the date of execution of this ballot?
Yes X
No
Date: ,200
OWNERS' Signatures "~~r~~ ~r~-~- ~.
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~2004~08-18~Anncxation Agmt.doc Page 7 of 7
Exhibit "A"
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 1 in the Northeast ~.4 of Section 15, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as shown on the sales map of
lands of the Kern County Land Company filed April 8, 1892, in the Office of the Kern
County Recorder, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 15; thence North 89° 10' 32" West,
along the North line of said Section 15, 663.86 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the
West line of said Lot 1; thence South 0~ 13' 29" West, along said West line of Lot 1,
592.19 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1), South 89' 10' 32" East, a distance of 90.01 feet;
Thence (2), South 0° 13' 29" East a distance of 733.52 feet to a point on the South line
of said Lot 1;
Thence (3), N 89° 10' 32' West, along ,said South line a distance of 90.01 feet to the
Southwest corner of said Lot 1;
Thence (4), North 0° 13' 29" East, along said West line of Lot 1, a distance of 733.52 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 1.516 acres, more or less.
End of Description
TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING
S 89'IO'J2"E
OLIVE DFIIVE
S 89~i0'32"£ 663.86'
S 89~O'J2"E 90.00'
CORNER
SECIION 15 29/27
0 50
EXHIBIT 'A '
Exhibit "B"
A pamel of land being a portion of Lot 1 in the Northeast ~,4 of Section 15, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as shown on the sales map of
lands of the Kern County Land Company filed April 8, 1892, in the Office of the Kern
County Recorder, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 15; thence North 89' 10' 32" West,
along the North line of said Section 15, 663.86 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the
West line of said Lot 1; thence South 0° 13' 29" West, along said West line of Lot 1,
292.17 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1), South 89° 10' 32' East, a distance of 106.01 feet;
Thence (2), South 3° 16' 45" West, a distance of 300.28 feet;
Thence (3), N 89° 10' 32" West, a distance of 90.01 feet to a point on said West line of
Lot 1;
Thence (4), North 0° 13' 29" East, along said West line, a distance of 300.02 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 0.675 acres, more or less.
End of Description
TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING
OLIVE DRIVE
S 89'10'32" E663.86'
89'10'32'*E
106.01'
t
oo
APN 36~5-020-30
89'10'32"E
90. O0 '
CORNER
SEC710N 15 29/27
0 50
EXHIBIT 'B'
R/W FL ~ R/~
A
34'VARIES VARIES
CURB ~D ~~UTTER
CT. TION A-A ~
A
AND GUT~R
R,/W FL ~ R/W
11', , 34' ,
CURB ~
20' EP 2.5'
PAt,ED SlREET
SECTION B-B
J J
FEET
0 5O
EXHIBIT ~-~,~ ~
OFiSiNAL