HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 90-99RESOLUTION NO. 9 0 ' 9 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION IN
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN;
ADOPTING A REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM;
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Central District Development Agency of the City of Bakersfield,
hereinafter referred to as the "Agency," as Lead Agency has prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EI R) for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project, an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and a program EIR
would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse on
October 13, 1998 for a 30-day review period in accordance with CEQA: and
WHEREAS, the Agency held a public scoping hearing on November 9, 1998 to
receive input from the public and agencies on the Initial Study and scope of the Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated to interested parties and
agencies and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State
CEQA Guidelines, City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, and Agency
CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, a Notice of Availability was published on
March 5, 1999 for a 45-day review period to end on April 19, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse and
the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#98101032) on March 5,
1999 to start the 45-day review period to end on April 19, 1999 in accordance with CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Agency on April 12, 1999,
at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Draft EIR was held during the latter half of the
public review period as is required by the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation
Procedures and Agency CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR relating to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, and responding to the comments raised
during the review period and at the public hearing has been completed pursuant to said
statute, procedures and guidelines on May 14, 1999 and notice of its availability was made
to interested parties and agencies; and
WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project
includes those items delineated in Public Resources Code § 21167.6e:
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR
consists of the following:
The Draft EIR;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim
or in summary;
A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR;
The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised
in the review and consultation process; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Project was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132;
and
WHEREAS, the Agency at a joint meeting with the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield on June 16, 1999 adopted a resolution certifying that said Final EIR was
completed in Compliance with CEQA and State and local Guidelines adopted pursuant
thereto and making certain findings with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 the City
Council considered the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy of an EIR":
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir sewpd
2
CEQA Guidelines Section 15151:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision
which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what
is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for
adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
and;
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the Lead Agency
has certified that:
a. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
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
and;
The final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis.
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15151 and 15090, the
Agency has certified in its resolution that the Final EIR was considered for adequacy,
completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure and has been completed in compliance
with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at a joint meeting of the Agency and City Council on June 16, 1999, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15151 and 15090, the Final EIR was
presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project prior to approving the project; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in CEQA, City of Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures and Agency CEQA Guidelines, have been fully followed by the
City and Agency staff, the Agency and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the project must be granted a "de minimis" exemption with respect to
the payment of Fish and Game Section 711 fees. Based on the absence of evidence in the
record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se,wpd
3
(CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead
Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance
with regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption
in accordance with Section 711 of the State of California Fish and Game Code.
Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-referenced absence
of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct and constitute
the Findings of the City Council in this matter.
2. The Central District Development Agency has certified that the Final EIR has
been completed in compliance with CEQA.
3. The Final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project was presented to the City Council and the City Council
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the
project.
4. The implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project will not have a significant effect on the environment in
certain respects identified in Sections 3.1.2 (Land Use), 3.2.2 (Biological Resources), 3.3.2
(Transportation/Circulation), 3.4.2 (Population and Housing), 3.5.2 (Cultural Resources),
3.6.2 (Public Services and Utilities), 3.7.2 (Geology, Hydrology and Water Quality), 3.8.2
(Noise), 3.9.2 (Aesthetics/Light and Glare), 3.11.2 (Hazardous Materials/Contaminated
Sites) and 5.1 (Effects Found Not to be Significant) of the Final EIR.
5. The implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Project may have a significant effect on the environment in
certain respects identified in Section II. of Exhibit "1" (attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference).
6. With respect to the significant effects detailed in the Final EIR for the
proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project:
a. The significant environmental effects of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, including those raised in the
comments on the Draft EIR, have been considered and recognized by the Council;
b. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project to
mitigate reduction in roadway service levels on roadway segments in the Project Area,
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
4
identified in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the Final EIR. These mitigation measures cannot
reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant, however. A certain level of
mitigation will be provided by the measures identified in Section II. of Exhibit "1" and
incorporated herein by reference. There are no feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives which will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level, as set forth in
Section III. of Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
c. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have not been required in or incorporated into the Project
to mitigate growth-inducing impacts in the Project Area, identified in Section 3.4.2 of the
Final EIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which will
reduce the growth-inducing impacts of the Project to a less than significant level, as set
forth in Section III. of Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
d. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
will mitigate impacts on cultural resources, identified in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 of the Final
EIR, to a level that is less than significant, and are identified in Section II. of Exhibit "1" and
incorporated herein by reference;
e. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
will mitigate impacts on storm drainage system capacity and localized flooding, identified
in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of the Final EIR, to a level that is less than significant, and are
identified in Section II. of Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
f. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project to
mitigate cumulative air quality impacts of increased stationary and mobile source
emissions, identified in Sections 3.10.2 and 3.10.3 of the Final EIR. These mitigation
measures cannot reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant level, however. A
certain level of mitigation will be provided by the measures identified in Section II. of Exhibit
"1" and incorporated herein by reference. There are no feasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives which will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level, as set forth
in Section III. of Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
g. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
will mitigate construction-related air quality impacts, identified in Sections 3.10.2 and
3.10.3 of the Final EIR, to a level that is less than significant, and are identified in Section
II. of Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
h. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
will mitigate air quality impacts related to asbestos, identified in Sections 3.10.2 and 3.10.3
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
of the Final EIR, to a level that is less than significant, and are identified in Section II. of
Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference;
i. Based on the information set forth in the Final EIR, the Council finds
and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
will mitigate impacts related to contaminated sites, identified in Sections 3.11.2 and 3.11.3
of the Final EIR, to a level that is less than significant, and are identified in Section II. of
Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference; and
j. That no additional environmental effects other than those identified
above in paragraphs 5b through 5i will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project.
7. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identified in Chapter Six of
the Final EIR and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "2" was approved and
adopted by the Agency to monitor and ensure that the mitigation measures identified will
be instituted. The City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield, or his/her designee, shall retain
custody, within the records of the City of Bakersfield, of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and the whole of the record upon which this decision is based.
8. All significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the
proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project have
been reduced to an acceptable level in that:
a. All significant environmental effects that can feasiblely be avoided have
been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined and as set forth in the findings in
paragraphs 5b through 5i of this Resolution;
b. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been identified and
adopted which will monitor and ensure that the mitigation measures identified will be
instituted; and
c. Based upon the Final EIR and other documents and information in the
record with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopmerit Project, all remaining, unavoidable significant effects of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project are overridden
by the benefits of the project as described in Section IV. of Exhibit "1 ," and the Council
hereby adopts said Section IV. of Exhibit "1" as a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the proposed Redevelopmerit Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment
Project and implementing actions.
9. Upon approval of the project by the City of Bakersfield, the City Clerk of the
City of Bakersfield is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination with
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert fair se.wpd
6
the County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to the provision of Section 21152 of the Public
Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
7
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on JUN 16 1999 ,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER f,J
COUNCILMEMBER
APPROVED: ,:,}I.JN I 6 ?~::~
'. /'/· ///
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO CLERK
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
Exhibit: 1.
Exhibit: 2.
Statement of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Regarding Significant Environmental Effects under the Provisions of
California Code of Regulations § 15091 and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
EXHIBIT "1"
STATEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS § 15091
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency
makes one or more of the following findings for each of those significant
effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The possible findings are:
(1)
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the final EIR.
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The Final EIR for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan identifies certain
significant environmental effects which may occur as a result of the project. Therefore,
findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. As certain
significant impacts cannot be reduced to less than significant levels, a Statement of
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se,wpd
Overriding Considerations is provided. Mitigation measures are summarized for each
significant impact based in pad on the requirements contained in Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted
as part of this Resolution.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project proposed for consideration is the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. A redevelopment plan sets forth a basic
framework for activities designed to alleviate blighting conditions found in the Project Area,
to revitalize and redevelop the Project Area, and to assist with the redevelopment and
revitalization of the Project Area.
As demonstrated in the Report to Council for the proposed Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Plan, the Project Area is characterized by deteriorated commercial,
industrial and residential structures; contaminated sites; obsolete structures; circulation and
parking problems; lack of adequate infrastructure; incompatible land uses; irregularly
shaped parcels; vacant and abandoned buildings; residential overcrowding; and a lack of
necessary commercial facilities.
The primary purpose of the proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan is the
elimination and prevention of blight through the assistance and encouragement of public
and private rehabilitation and redevelopment efforts, and through the provision of new or
replacement of existing public improvements, facilities, and utilities within the Project Area.
The Agency plans to accomplish this task in part through the implementation of programs
that include public improvements (improvements to streets and circulation, drainage, water,
wastewater, miscellaneous public facilities, and parks and recreation), development
assistance, housing assistance, relocation assistance, and property acquisition and
assemblage.
As such, the proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan is properly seen as a
program of the mitigation previously existing of adverse environmental conditions. A
certain amount of additional impacts are also anticipated over the 45-year life of the
Redevelopment Plan, which have been identified and analyzed, together with mitigation
measures relating thereto. Nevertheless, certain pre-existing adverse environmental
impacts cannot be reduced to a level that is "less than significant," even with the
redevelopment program proposed.
This Statement of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Regarding Significant
Environmental Effects Under the Provisions of California Code of Regulations § 15091 and
Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Statement") considers and analyzes these
effects, mitigation measures and, where applicable, overriding considerations.
Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA Implementation Procedures adopted by the City of
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
Bakersfield and the Central District Development Agency, the Final Environmental Impact
Report ("Final EIR") for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan (SCH No.
98101032) addresses environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability
of occurrence. The Final EIR identifies certain potentially significant adverse environmental
effects of the Project. These effects are summarized below. The Final EIR also identifies
mitigation measures which will reduce or eliminate most of these potentially significant
effects. These mitigation measures are also listed below. The determination of whether
or not to incorporate such mitigation measures, and the rationale for such determination,
are also set forth below.
In making these findings and determinations, not all of the rationale and database
information contained in the Final EIR is repeated. The Final EIR and other source
documents referenced therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full
herein.
II. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following environmental effects were identified as having the potential to cause a
significant environmental impact:
IMPACT #3.3-1: TRAFFIC: REDUCTION IN ROADWAY SERVICE LEVELS:
Reduction in roadway service levels on roadway segments on California Avenue, Brundage
Lane, SR 58, H Street, Chester Avenue, and SR 204/Union Avenue within the Project Area
due to development within and surrounding the Project Area. Projected increases in traffic
volumes will cause segments of these roadways to degrade from LOS "A" or "B" to LOS
"D", "E" and "F" conditions with existing geometrics. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan EIR reported that in order to maintain mobility with General Plan buildout, the
Circulation Element presents a Circulation Plan which identifies necessary street
improvements to avoid major traffic congestion. These improvements include widenings
and extensions of existing streets and freeways. The General Plan EIR concluded that
these street improvements were anticipated to accommodate planned land development
without traffic congestion. All new streets and freeways were projected to operate at LOS
"C" or better, with volumes less than 80 percent of capacity. However, the time horizon for
that conclusion was year 2010, rather than the updated time horizon used in this EIR of
year 2020. All redevelopment activities and new development within the Project Area must
be in accordance with the adopted Redevelopment Plan, which is consistent with the
General Plan. Adoption and implementation of the proposed Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Plan will not cause all of the roadway impacts, but will contribute to the
unacceptable level of service conditions through redevelopment activities that promote new
development and infill development.
FINDING:
With regard to traffic impacts due to reduction in roadway service
levels, because the traffic study is based on projected 2020 traffic
model volumes, some of the resulting mitigations presented in the EIR
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir sewpd
3
may be beyond practical limits to construct. Because of the program-
level nature of the traffic study, its conclusions identify potential
deficiencies in the street system that require monitoring, more detailed
study when individual redevelopment activities are proposed, and
development of project-specific mitigation strategies as needed to
comply with the Level of Service Ordinance. While individual
redevelopment activities may not exceed thresholds of significance or
may be mitigated to a level that is less than significant, significant
cumulative impacts over the life of the Redevelopment Plan will be
avoided or substantially lessened by the following changes that have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project, although not to a
level that is less than significant:
Mitigation Measure #3.3-1: The City of Bakersfield and Caltrans shall monitor
Project Area roadways listed in Tables 6 and 7 of Appendix B of the Draft EIR to
determine the timing and extent of required project-specific mitigation measures.
All redevelopment activities in the Project Area which affect roadway facilities under
the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield and meet or exceed City traffic study
thresholds shall prepare a traffic study which includes information described in
Chapter 4.1 of the Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual; those which affect
roadway facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and meet or exceed Caltrans
traffic study thresholds shall prepare a traffic study that includes information
described in the Caltrans Guide for Traffic Impact Studies. Based on the results of
the traffic study, redevelopment activities shall contribute their pro-rata share to the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Development Fee Program for designated
Transportation Impact Fee facilities, and shall contribute the activity's pro-rata share
to any other traffic facilities requiring improvement to reduce impacts to a level that
is less than significant. As determined to be appropriate by the Central District
Development Agency, and as funds are available, the CDDA may provide financial
assistance toward payment of the pro-rata share for redevelopment activities or
activities receiving redevelopment assistance.
FINDING OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measure will mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant cumulative impact on traffic and reduction in roadway service levels,
although not to a level which is less than significant.
FURTHER FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS:
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project
alternatives or mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level. However, since the timing, extent and feasibility of mitigating the
particular roadways and intersections cannot be determined with any precision at
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
4
this time, the residual transportation/circulation impacts are considered to remain
significant, cumulative and adverse.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be necessary to approve the Project
with this remaining impact. See Section IV. below.
IMPACT #3.4-2: GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS:
Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Redevelopment Project. As described in Section
3.1.1 of the Draft EIR, the Project Area is already 81.2 percent urbanized. All
redevelopment activities and development within the Project Area must be consistent with
the adopted Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the Casa Loma Specific Plan
(where applicable). Under the "maximum buildout" scenario, there would be a net increase
of 9,692 dwelling units in the Project Area, and a corresponding increase in population.
Under the "residential retention" scenario, which i,s determined to be more realistic than the
"maximum buildout" scenario for the reasons stated in Section 3.4-1 of the Draft EIR, there
would be a net increase of 11,870 dwelling units in the Project Area, and a corresponding
increase in population.
FINDING:
In the context of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan,
which will allow substantial growth over the planning period, these
scenarios can be accommodated. Nevertheless, both scenarios
represent a substantial increase in population in the Project Area
which is facilitated by adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, resulting
in a significant, unavoidable growth-inducing impact. Mitigation
measures to reduce growth and development potential in the Project
Area would be inconsistent with the 2010 General Plan and the
objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and are therefore not
recommended.
FURTHER FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS:
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project
alternatives or mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level. Limiting development to a level which does not allow additional
population and housing units would be tantamount to prohibiting all development;
not a legally or economically feasible choice. This would be equivalent to adopting
the "No Project Alternative" described in the Final EIR, which is found in Section III.
herein to be infeasible.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be necessary to approve this Project
with this impact. See Section IV. below.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
IMPACT #3.5-1: CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Potential for disturbance or destruction of cultural resources within the Project Area due to
redevelopment activities.
FINDING:
There is a potential for impacts to pre-historical or historical resources
as a result of individual redevelopment activities in the Project Area.
Based on impact evaluation criteria, impacts on cultural resources are
potentially significant. There is also a potential for significant impacts
to historical buildings and other features in the Project Area. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid of substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR. These changes include the following
mitigation measures reported in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program:
Mitigation Measure #3.5-1: Each individual redevelopment activity within the
Project Area shall be evaluated for its potential impact on prehistoric and historical
cultural resources as each individual activity is proposed. Activities subject to CEQA
shall consider all properties over 45 years old. Activities involving federal funds
(HUD, CDBG, etc.) fall under NHPA guidelines, and shall consider all properties
over 50 years old. Further archival research to identify unrecorded cultural
resources, or properties that are eligible or potentially eligible for the National
Register, shall be conducted on a project-specific basis within the Project Area. In
the event that unrecorded historic resources are identified, further research to
assess the potential for adverse impacts shall be conducted and appropriate
mitigation measures recommended. All cultural resource work shall be conducted
by a qualified historian, architectural historian, or archaeologist, depending on the
situation.
Mitigation Measure #3.5-2: If archaeological resources are encountered during
redevelopment activity construction in the Project Area, work in the immediate
vicinity shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation, and
mitigation measures are recommended. The County Coroner shall be notified and
local Native American organizations consulted if human remains are encountered.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measures will mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant impacts on cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
6
IMPACT #3.7-2: STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM CAPACITY IMPACTS:
Impacts on existing storm drainage system capacity in the Project Area due to
redevelopment activities. Since the Project Area is already substantially developed with
impervious surfaces, the increase in surface runoff due to redevelopment activities is
anticipated to be minimal. The minimal increase in runoff that would occur would result
from new residential construction and development on existing vacant lots in the Project
Area.
FINDING:
The potential for redevelopment activities to create or exacerbate
localized flooding exists and is potentially significant. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which, in conjunction with proposed redevelopment drainage projects,
compliance with standards for drainage in the City Subdivision Design
Manual, compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR. These changes include the following mitigation measure
reported in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program:
Mitigation Measure #3.7-1: On a project-specific basis, each redevelopment
activity within the Project Area shall evaluate the adequacy of local surface water
drainage facilities. Where localized flooding is possible during the design storm,
new and/or upgraded drainage facilities shall be designed by a qualified engineer
and submitted to the City for approval. As available and appropriate, redevelopment
funds may be used to assist in this process.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measure will mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant impact on existing storm drainage capacity and localized flooding to a
level that is less than significant.
IMPACT #3.10-1: AIR QUALITY: STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS:
Increase in stationary and mobile source emissions of pollutants due to increased traffic
and stationary sources of pollutants resulting from redevelopment activities in the Project
Area. The Redevelopment Plan will promote and facilitate redevelopment activities which
result in increased traffic and new stationary sources.
FINDING:
The cumulative impacts of regional emissions associated with buildout
in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan (which at the time of
adoption will be consistent with the General Plan) will exceed State
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
7
emissions standards for ozone and inhalable particulates. Because
Kern County is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10, this is a
significant cumulative impact. The following changes have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant cumulative environmental effect,
although not to a level that is less than significant:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-1: For redevelopment activities in the Project Area, the
Central District Development Agency shall require compliance with the rules and
regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in effect
at the time a project is approved, and include applicable measures as conditions of
project approval.
FINDING OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measure will mitigate or avoid the significant
cumulative impact on air quality due to stationary and mobile source emissions,
although not to a level which is less than significant.
FURTHER FINDING WITH REGARD TO AIR QUALITY/STATIONARY AND
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS:
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project
alternatives or mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level. Additional measures to reduce stationary or vehicular emissions
to a less than significant level are beyond the technological, legal and economic
ability of the Agency or City to implement.
The air quality in the Project Area already exceeds SJVUAPCD standards for air
pollutant emissions. Accordingly, any additional development in the proposed
Project Area will result in non-compliance with SJVUAPCD standards. Limiting
development to a level which does not exceed air pollutant threshold standards
would be tantamount to prohibiting all development; not a legally or economically
feasible choice. This would be equivalent to adopting the "No Project Alternative"
described in the Final EIR, which is found in Section III. herein to be infeasible.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be necessary to approve this Project
with this impact. See Section IV. below.
IMPACT #3.10-2: AIR QUALITY: CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
Increase in air pollutants resulting from grading and construction activities in the Project
Area, including emissions from construction equipment operations, due to redevelopment
activities. The Redevelopment Plan will promote and facilitate new construction. Grading
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
8
and construction activities generate other pollutants, such as dust, which contribute to the
degradation of the ambient air quality.
FINDING:
Because construction impacts will occur gradually over the planning
period, direct impacts will be temporary and are anticipated to be less
than significant. However, because Kern County is a nonattainment
area for PM10, the increase in emissions is considered a significant
cumulative impact. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant cumulative environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR. These changes include the following mitigation measure
recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District reported in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-1: For redevelopment activities in the Project Area, the
Central District Development Agency shall require compliance with the rules and
regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in effect
at the time a project is approved, and include applicable measures as conditions of
project approval.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measure will mitigate or avoid potentially
significant air quality construction impacts to a level that is less than significant.
IMPACT #3.10-3: AIR QUALITY: ASBESTOS IMPACTS:
Potential for asbestos-containing material to be released during the demolition and
rehabilitation of buildings in the Project Area due to redevelopmerit activities.
FINDING:
Release of asbestos-containing material is a potentially significant
impact. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. These changes
include the following mitigation measure reported in the Final EIR and
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
Mitigation Measure #3.10-2: The Central District Development Agency shall require
all redevelopment activities involving demolition and rehabilitation within the Project
Area to comply with applicable rules and regulations of the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District in effect at the time a project is approved or
commenced. SJVUAPCD regulations currently require compliance with the
asbestos demolition and renovation requirements developed by the U.S.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
9
Environmental Protection Agency in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M. CaI-OSHA and
CaI-EPA hazardous waste regulations also apply in most cases. An asbestos
inspection shall be conducted by a licensed inspector prior to commencement of any
renovation or demolition in the Project Area. If asbestos-containing materials (ACM)
are discovered which will be disturbed during a renovation or demolition, they must
be removed prior to the commencement of the project under most circumstances.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measure will mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant impact of release of asbestos-containing material to a level that is less
than significant.
IMPACT #3.11-1: CONTAMINATED SITE IMPACTS:
Adverse impacts associated with construction within or adjacent to a leaking underground
tank site, a landfill site, potential landfill site, or pipeline in the Project Area due to
redevelopment activities. Redevelopment activities that include soil disturbance or
construction upon or in close proximity to contaminated sites could result in exposure of
humans to toxic materials. Such sites include soils or groundwater contaminated by
chemical use, storage or disposal; leaking underground tanks; private, municipal, or
industrial landfills; or suspected landfills. Some contaminated sites have been identified
in the Project Area; however, those identified do not represent all the sites possible. It is
probable that numerous other contaminated sites exist in the Project Area and have not
been discovered. Disturbance of contaminated soils could release fumes that could injure
construction workers. Buried wastes could similarly be encountered and result in direct or
indirect exposures to construction workers or nearby residents, and hasten the release of
hazardous materials from containers that may be punctured by construction. Asbestos
containing materials (ACM) are likely present in most of the structures located in the Project
Area. Inappropriate demolition, remodeling, or construction techniques could release
hazardous levels of ACMs into the environment and adversely affect the health of
construction workers and members of the public. Inappropriate handling of hazardous
wastes encountered could exacerbate hazardous materials exposures, as could
inappropriate transport and/or disposal. Construction of buildings, parking areas, streets,
utilities, or other improvements could prevent or complicate remediation of hazardous
wastes that may be present in contaminated areas.
FINDING:
With regard to adverse impacts associated with construction within or
adjacent to a contaminated site, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR. These changes include the following mitigation
measures reported in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program:
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cer~ feir se.wpd
10
Mitigation Measure #,3.11-1: For all redevelopment construction activities within the
Project Area, a Phase I Environmental Assessment shall be conducted in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM Designation E
1527-94. Where the Phase I Environmental Assessment indicates that there is a
potential for the site to have been contaminated by past land uses, further study
shall be conducted to determine if the soil and/or groundwater is contaminated and,
if so, to determine appropriate remediation measures prior to Agency approval.
Redevelopment funds can be used to assist in cleanup of contaminated sites.
Mitigation Measure #3.11-2: Where redevelopment activities in the Project Area
are planned at or in the vicinity of known leaking underground tanks or landfill sites,
t he Central District Development Agency shall conduct or require private applicants
to conduct appropriate soil and/or groundwater investigations to delineate the lateral
and vertical extent and character of the contamination with respect to the site
development plans. A health risk assessment shall be conducted to ascertain if
there is a potential for impacts to human health associated with the proposal.
Recommendations shall be obtained from the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other agencies as
appropriate. Conditions shall be placed on the activity that require clean-up or
stabilization of wastes, allowing development to occur without impacting human
health, the environment, or subsequent required clean-up efforts. Redevelopmerit
funds can be used to assist in cleanup of contaminated sites. Information
developed shall be presented in an appropriate subsequent environmental
document.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER ADOPTED MITIGATION:
The foregoing adopted mitigation measures will mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant impacts associated with construction activities on contaminated sites to
a level that is less than significant.
II1. FINDINGS SUPPORTING REJECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasiblely attain
most of the basic objectives of the project..." (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6). The objectives
of the proposed Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan are as stated in Section IV.
below.
The City Council recognizes that while some of the alternatives described below will yield
environmental benefits within the City and the Project Area, the procurement of these
benefits may have corresponding negative environmental impacts on the Project Area and
the remainder of the City. The City Council is cognizant of the possibility that alternatives
may be illusory when viewed on the city-wide basis. As such, alternatives will not be
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
11
approved by the City Council where they achieve local environmental benefits at the
expense of city-wide environmental health or important Project objectives such as
alleviating blight in the Project Area.
Alternatives were selected on the basis of their ability to attain most of the Project
objectives while reducing its significant environmental impacts. The alternatives analyzed
are as follows: Alternative 1, the "No Project" alternative which analyzes development of
the Project Area in accordance with the existing General Plan land use designations, Casa
Loma Specific Plan (where applicable), zoning, and available infrastructure, but without
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and the benefits associated with tax increment
financing; Alternative Project Area/Reduction of Project Area, which consists of the
exclusion of approximately 1,370 acres from the two sub-areas in the Redevelopment
Project Area; and Combined Project Areas Alternative, which consists of combining the
Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and Plan with the proposed Old Town Kern-
Pioneer Redevelopment Project and Plan being processed concurrently.
Based on all the information in the record, the City Council makes the following findings
regarding the alternatives to the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan discussed in
the EIR;
ALTERNATIVE I - NO PROJECT
Brief Description
In accordance with Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No
Project Alternative consists of an analysis of the circumstance under which the
project does not proceed. The scenario that is analyzed in the EIR consists of
development of the Project Area in accordance with the existing General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designations, zoning, and available infrastructure, but without
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and the benefits associated with tax increment
financing, including AB 1290 pass-throughs to school districts and the potential for
Redevelopment Agency assistance with the remediation of hazardous materials.
Findings
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative is less desirable than the
Project proposal and rejects the Alternative for the following reasons:
Because of the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan land use
designations, adopted Specific Plan and zoning, failure to proceed with the
project would not ultimately result in preservation of existing environmental
conditions.
Without adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, physical and economic
conditions of blight as identified in Chapter Two of the EIR would continue
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso ced feir se.wpd
12
and likely become worse. Free market conditions are unlikely, without the aid
of redevelopment actions, to stimulate revitalization of the Redevelopment
Project Area. Thus, blighting influences would persist and the local
environmental quality would continue to deteriorate.
Development under the existing General Plan, Specific Plan and zoning
would occur without the additional environmental protection afforded by the
Redevelopment Plan activities, which will facilitate the construction of needed
improvements and the additional mitigation measures proposed in the EIR.
Without the proposed redevelopment activities, especially the proposed
infrastructure improvements, it is unlikely that development will or can occur
at the densities planned in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
or that existing blighted properties will be improved.
The No Project Alternative would essentially be the equivalent of a "slow
growth" scenario, with environmental conditions gradually deteriorating rather
than maintaining the status quo or improving.
fo
For the reasons stated in Items a, b, c, d, and e above, the No Project
Alternative would not attain most of the stated objectives of the proposed
Project.
ALTERNATIVE PROJECT AREA/REDUCED PROJECT AREA
Brief Description
This scenario considers the reduction in size of the proposed Project Area by
excluding the area along both sides of Mount Vernon Avenue south of State Route
58 in the northerly sub-area, and the area south of Planz Road in the southerly sub-
area. This would remove approximately 1,370 acres from the Project Area, leaving
a total of approximately 3,249 acres. Excluding other portions of the Project Area
in lieu of these areas would not meet the standard for urbanization required by
Community Redevelopment Law.
Findings
The City Council finds that the Alternative Project Area/Reduced Project Area, while
determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR because
redevelopment-related impacts would be occur more slowly with the reduction in
size of the two sub-areas, is less desirable than the Project proposal and rejects the
Alternative for the following reasons:
To the extent that development would occur anyway within the excluded
portions of the sub-areas consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
13
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to
balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
"acceptable." The CEQA Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows for the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons the action was
supported. Any statement of overriding considerations should be included in the record of
project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
To the extent the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened
to a level of insignificance, the City Council, having reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having
reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having
balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that
such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding
considerations discussion.
The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen
project impacts to a level that is less than significant, and furthermore, that alternatives to
the project are infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide
the benefits of the project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully
described above.
The environmental analysis undertaken for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan
indicated the project would result in contributions to cumulative air quality impacts,
cumulative traffic impacts, and growth-inducing impacts that would represent a significant
adverse environmental effect on a project and cumulative basis. Furthermore, the analysis
indicated that while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of impacts
on traffic and air quality, project-generated traffic and emissions would still contribute to
reduced levels of service and a violation of state and federal clean air standards.
The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in both the Draft
and Final EIRs prepared for the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan and the public
record. The project benefits include the following:
The improvement of the physical appearance of the Project Area through the
stimulation of new commercial, industrial and residential construction, through the
rehabilitation of existing commercial and industrial buildings and sites, through
infrastructure improvements.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cer~ feir se.wpd
15
The elimination of uses that, either individually or collectively, contribute to blight in
the Project Area because they do not conform to the General Plan or are
incompatible with adjacent uses.
The elimination of blight through abatement, code compliance, or elimination of
incompatible uses, and through reconstruction and assembly of parcels into more
developable sites for more compatible uses.
The provision of adequate buffers between commercial/industrial uses and
residential neighborhoods.
The reduction of crime and graffiti in the Project Area through coordination of efforts
with Project Area owners, residents, businesses, the Bakersfield Police Department
and the Bakersfield Code Enforcement Division.
The assistance to and encouragement of owner, business, and public agency
cooperation and participation in revitalizing the Project Area.
The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation and
expansion of the area's existing employment base.
The establishment of modern, convenient commercial centers to serve the needs
of the surrounding neighborhoods and the City.
The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including
substandard vehicular circulation systems; inadequate street improvements;
inadequate water, sewer and storm drainage systems; insufficient off-street parking;
and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely
affecting the Project Area.
The assistance to owners of Real Property with the provision of on-site
improvements to connect to off-site public improvements, including, but not limited
to, vehicular circulation and access, water connections, sewer connections, storm
drainage, and off-street parking.
The development of programs to alleviate negative physical, social, and economic
impacts and liabilities associated with a concentration of liquor-related or other adult-
oriented establishments in the Project Area.
The expansion and upgrading of housing opportunities in the community to eliminate
blight and improve housing stock and standards for the present population, including
both market rate and low- and moderate-income households.
The improvement of local schools, parks and other public uses.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se,wpd
16
The elimination of drug, prostitution and other criminal activities and uses throughout
the Project Area.
The City Council makes the following finding, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, with regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan:
California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15093(a)states: "If the
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
Based on the above discussion and on the evidence presented, the City Council therefore
finds that the economic and social benefits of the proposed project listed above outweigh
the adverse traffic, air quality and growth-inducing impacts associated with the Southeast
Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan, which cannot be eliminated or reduced to a level that is
less than significant.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se,wpd
17
EXHIBIT 2
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
This Exhibit presents the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Southeast Bakersfield
Redevelopment Plan EIR. For each individual mitigation measure included in Chapter
Three, this chapter identifies the following information:
·
How mitigation will be implemented
Timing of actions necessary for implementation
Entity or entities that will undertake required action(s)
Agency or department responsible for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has
been properly implemented as well as taking corrective actions when a measure has
not been properly implemented
The checklist summarizing mitigation measures is included in the Executive Summary.
IMPACT #3.3-1: Reduction in roadway service levels on roadway segments on California
Avenue, Brundage Lane, SR 58, H Street, Chester Avenue, and SR 204/Union Avenue
within the Project Area due to development within and surrounding the Project Area.
Mitigation Measure #3.3-1: The City of Bakersfield and Caltrans shall monitor the
Project Area roadways listed in Tables 6 and 7 of Appendix B to determine the
timing and extent of required project-specific mitigation measures. All
redevelopment activities in the Project Area which affect roadway facilities under the
jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield and meet City traffic study thresholds shall
prepare a traffic study which includes the information described in Chapter 4.1 of the
Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual; those which affect roadway facilities under
the jurisdiction of Caltrans and meet Caltrans traffic study thresholds shall prepare
a traffic study which includes the information described in the Caltrans Guide for
Traffic Impact Studies. Based on the results of the traffic study, redevelopment
activities shall contribute their pro-rata share to the Metropolitan Bakersfield
Transportation Development Fee Program for designated Transportation Impact Fee
facilities, and shall contribute the activity's pro-rata share to any other traffic facilities
requiring improvement to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. As
determined to be appropriate by the Central District Development Agency, and as
funds are available, the CDDA may provide financial assistance toward payment of
the pro-rata share for redevelopment activities or activities receiving redevelopment
assistance.
Monitoring Plan: The Agency will work with the City and Caltrans to establish
appropriate monitoring time frames and thresholds for roadways listed in Tables 6
and 7 of Appendix B of this EIR. As redevelopment activities are proposed within
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se,wpd
the Project Area, the Agency will be responsible, in consultation with the City Public
Works Department and Caltrans, for requiring traffic studies, determining the timing
and extent of required project-specific mitigation measures, assuring that
Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Development Fees are collected, and
assuring that pro-rata shares are paid for any other traffic facilities requiring
improvement. The Agency will determine if or when Agency financial assistance
toward payment of pro-rata shares is appropriate. The Agency will be responsible
for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has been properly implemented, and for
taking corrective actions when a measure has not been properly implemented.
IMPACT #3.5-1: Potential for disturbance or destruction of cultural resources within the
Project Area due to redevelopment activities.
Mitigation Measure #3.5-1: Each individual redevelopment activity within the
Project Area shall be evaluated for its potential impact on prehistoric and historical
cultural resources as each individual activity is proposed. Activities subject to CEQA
shall consider all properties over 45 years old. Activities involving federal funds
(HUD, CDBG, etc.) Fall under NHPA guidelines, and shall consider all properties
over 50 years old. Further archival research and study to identify unrecorded
cultural resources, or properties that are eligible or potentially eligible for the
National Register, shall be conducted on a project-specific basis within the Project
Area. In the event that unrecorded historic resources are identified, further research
to assess the potential for adverse impacts shall be conducted and appropriate
mitigation measures recommended. All cultural resource work shall be conducted
by a qualified historian, architectural historian, or archaeologist, depending on the
situation.
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment activities are proposed within the Project Area,
the Agency will be responsible for securing the services of a qualified historian,
architectural historian, or archaeologist to evaluate the property and conduct further
archival research as necessary. In the event that unrecorded historic resources are
identified, the Agency will be responsible for having further research conducted to
assess impacts, and implementing recommended mitigation measures. The Agency
will be responsible for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has been properly
implemented, and for taking corrective actions when a measure has not been
properly implemented.
Mitigation Measure #3.5-2: If archaeological resources are encountered during
redevelopment activity construction in the Project Area, work in the immediate
vicinity shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation, and
mitigation measures are recommended. The County Coroner shall be notified and
local Native American organizations consulted if human remains are encountered.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
2
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment activities are constructed in the Project Area,
the Agency will be responsible for including appropriate terms in construction
specifications to implement this measure, including a requirement that contractors
and subcontractors sign documents acknowledging their responsibility to halt work
and notify the Agency. The Agency will be responsible for securing the services of
a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the situation, and implementing recommended
mitigation measures. The Agency will be responsible for notification of the County
Coroner and local Native American organizations if human remains are
encountered. The Agency will be responsible for monitoring and reporting that
mitigation has been properly implemented, and for taking corrective actions when
a measure has not been properly implemented.
IMPACT #3.7-2: Impacts on existing storm drainage system capacity in the Project Area
due to redevelopment activities.
Mitigation Measure #3.7-1: On a project-specific basis, each redevelopment
activity within the Project Area shall be evaluated to determine the adequacy of local
surface water drainage facilities. Where localized flooding is possible during the
design storm, new and/or upgraded drainage facilities shall be designed by a
qualified engineer and submitted to the City for approval. As available and
appropriate, redevelopment funds may be used to assist in this process.
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment construction activities are proposed in the
Project Area, the Agency will be responsible for assuring that new and/or upgraded
facilities have been approved by the City Public Works Department prior to issuance
of building or grading permits. The Agency will determine if or when Agency
financial assistance toward drainage improvements is appropriate. The Agency will
be responsible for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has been properly
implemented, and for taking corrective actions when a measure has not been
properly implemented.
IMPACT #3.10-1: Increase in stationary and mobile source emissions of pollutants due to
increased traffic and stationary sources of pollutants resulting from redevelopment activities
in the Project Area.
IMPACT #3.10-2: Increase in air pollutants resulting from grading and construction
activities in the Project Area, including emissions from construction equipment operations,
due to redevelopment activities.
Mitigation Measure #3.10-1: For redevelopment activities in the Project Area, the
Central District Development Agency shall require compliance with the rules and
regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in effect
at the time a project is approved, and include applicable measures as conditions of
project approval.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
3
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment activities are proposed in the Project Area, the
Agency will be responsible, in consultation with the SJVUAPCD, for assuring that
activities are in compliance with SJVUAPCD rules and regulations in effect at the
time a project is approved prior to issuance of building permits, and enforcing
conditions of approval. The Agency will be responsible for monitoring and reporting
that mitigation has been properly implemented, and for taking corrective actions
when a measure has not been properly implemented.
IMPACT #3.10-3: Potential for asbestos-containing material to be released during the
demolition and rehabilitation of buildings in the Project Area due to redevelopment
activities.
Mitigation Measure #3.10-2: The Central District Development Agency shall require
all redevelopment activities involving demolition and rehabilitation within the Project
Area to comply with applicable rules and regulations of the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District in effect at the time a project is approved or
commended. SJVUAPCD regulations currently require compliance with the
asbestos demolition and renovation requirements developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M. CaI-OSHA and
CaI-EPA hazardous waste regulations also apply in most cases. An asbestos
inspection shall be conducted by a licensed inspector prior to commencement of any
renovation or demolition in the Project Area. If asbestos-containing materials (ACM)
are discovered which will be disturbed during a renovation or demolition, they must
be removed prior to the commencement: of the project under most circumstances.
Monitoring Plan: At the time that redevelopment activities in the Project Area
involving demolition and/or rehabilitation are proposed, the Agency will be
responsible for assuring that activities are in compliance with SJVUAPCD rules and
regulations in effect at that time for asbestos removal. If required, the Agency will
be responsible for assuring that an asbestos inspection has been conducted by a
licensed inspector prior to issuance of building permits or demolition permits, and
that appropriate corrective measures have been completed. The Agency will be
responsible for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has been properly
implemented, and for taking corrective actions when a measure has not been
properly implemented.
IMPACT #3.11-1: Adverse impacts associated with construction within or adjacent to an
leaking underground tank site, a landfill site, or a potential landfill site in the Project Area
due to redevelopment activities.
Mitigation Measure #3.11-1: For all redevelopment construction activities within the
Project Area, a Phase I Environmental Assessment shall be conducted in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM Designation E
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd
4
1527-94. Where the Phase I Environmental Assessment indicates that there is a
potential for the site to have been contaminated by past land uses, further study
shall be conducted to determine if the soil and/or groundwater is contaminated and,
if so, to determine appropriate remediation measures prior to Agency approval.
Redevelopmerit funds can be used to assist in cleanup of contaminated sites.
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment construction activities are proposed in the
Project Area, the Agency will be responsible for assuring that Phase I Environmental
Assessments are conducted and, when warranted, further studies conducted and
appropriate remediation measures completed prior to Agency approval. The Agency
will determine if or when Agency financial assistance toward cleanup of
contaminated sites is appropriate. The Agency will be responsible for monitoring
and reporting that mitigation has been properly implemented, and for taking
corrective actions when a measure has not been properly implemented.
Mitigation Measure #3.11-2: Where redevelopment activities in the Project Area
are planned at or in the vicinity of known leaking underground tanks or landfill sites,
the Central District Development Agency shall conduct or require private applicants
to conduct appropriate soil and/or groundwater investigations to delineate the lateral
and vertical extent and character of the contamination with respect to the site
development plans. A health risk assessment shall be conducted to ascertain if
there is a potential for impacts to human health associated with the proposal.
Recommendations shall be obtained from the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other agencies as
appropriate. Conditions shall be placed on the activity that require clean-up or
stabilization of wastes, allowing development to occur without impacting human
health, the environment, or subsequent required clean-up efforts. Redevelopment
funds can be used to assist in cleanup of contaminated sites. Information
developed shall be presented in an appropriate subsequent environmental
document.
Monitoring Plan: As redevelopment construction activities are proposed in the
vicinity of known leaking underground tanks or landfill sites, the Agency will be
responsible for conducting or requiring private applicants to conduct investigations
and health risk assessments, and obtaining recommendations from appropriate
agencies. The Agency will be responsible for imposing conditions that require
cleanup or stabilization of wastes. The Agency will determine if or when Agency
financial assistance toward cleanup of contaminated sites is appropriate. The
Agency will be responsible for monitoring and reporting that mitigation has been
properly implemented, and for taking corrective actions when a measure has not
been properly implemented.
S:\REDVAREA\cc reso cert feir se.wpd