HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 139-97RESOLUTION NO. 1 3 9- 9 ?
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD DECLARING THAT IT HAS RECEIVED
REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIR
FOR THE BAKERSFIELD HEART HOSPITAL AND RELATED
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT; MAKING FINDINGS
AND CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL EIR HAS BEEN
COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE STATE EIR
GUIDELINES AND CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CEQA
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES (1997) AND DENYING AN
APPEAL BY LIZANNE REYNOLDS OF ADAMS, BROADWELL
AND JOSEPH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT. (RE: CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. P96-08591
AMENDMENT TO THE KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT NO. P96-
0859)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance
with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held public hearings on
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 and THURSDAY, JUNE '19, 1997, and continued such hearing to
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997, THURSDAY, JULY '17, 1997, MONDAY, AUGUST 4, t997,
THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1997, MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997, and THURSDAY, AUGUST 21,
1997, on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element and the Kern River Plan Element
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and related Zone Change for the Bakersfield
Heart Hospital and related Medical Office Building, notice of the time and place of hearing
having been given in accordance with City Ordinance (Title 17) provisions and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures before said hearing by publication in the
Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such Environmental Impact Report is for Concurrent GPNZC No.
P96-0859 proposing development of the Bakersfield Heart Hospital and related Medical Office
Building as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. P96-0859
Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. for Medcath, Inc. has proposed an
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change from
Highway Commercial and Service Industrial to Public Facilities on
10.1 acres for property located on the south side of Sillect
Avenue, east of Pierce Road, and north of Riverside Drive;
Kern River Plan Element Amendment No. P96-0859
Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. has applied to amend the Kern
River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan consisting of a change from land use Map Code 6.1 (Major
Commercial) and 7.2 (Service Commercial) to 3.3 (Other
Facilities) on 10.1 acres generally located on the south side of
Sillect Avenue, east of Pierce Road and north of Riverside Drive;
Zone Change No. P96-0859
Zone Change from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on
10.1 acres for property generally located south of Sillect Avenue,
east of Pierce Road, north of Riverside Drive; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, an Initial Study was conducted
and it was determined that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide greater public participation, all those property
owners within 300 feet, and all those who were previously forwarded copies of the Notice of
Preparation (Notice of Preparation) on February 3, 1997, were noticed individually of the
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project
includes the following:
1. The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report;
2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and
other documents prepared by the consultants relating to the project;
3. All testimony, documents, and evidence presented by the City and
consultants working with the City relating to the project;
4. The proceedings before the Planning Commission relating to the project
and DEIR, including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at
the public hearings; and
5. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission which it
considers, including but not limited to, the following:
a. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan;
b. City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance;
c. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
d. Other formally adopted policies and ordinances of the City.
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was subject to a forty-five
day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the California Code of Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the DEIR was held during the latter half of the
public review period as is required by the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures
(1997); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation was sent to all agencies having any
involvement in this project per Section 15086 of the California Code of Regulations; and
2
ORIGINAL
WHEREAS, notice of hearing was given to all commenting agencies as is
required by the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures (1997) and State Law;
and
WHEREAS, Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. and Medcath, Inc. has entered into
an agreement with the City to implement all mitigation measures identified in the environmental
analysis contained within the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact in support of the Findings for Significant
Environmental Effects of the Bakersfield Heart Hospital and related Medical Office Building
Project is attached as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Lizanne
Reynolds of Adams, Broadwell and Joseph on August 29, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, together with the Findings of Facts,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct and
constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this matter.
2. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports
and papers relevant thereto, will be transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to
the City Council.
3. That Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. and Medcath, Inc. by prior written
agreement agreed to comply with all adopted mitigation measures contained within the EIR.
4. Potentially Significant Impacts that have been mitigated. Exhibit "A"
describes those impacts identified by the EIR as significant. As to each of said impacts, the
Planning Commission hereby finds that mitigation incorporated into the project avoids impacts
or mitigates impacts to less than a significant level. Each of the impacts and the facts
substantiating this finding are as set forth in Exhibit "A".
5. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section
21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (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 a Negative Declaration for this project.
6. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit "B") describes the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of this plan as
implementation of mitigation measures for the Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Related Medical
Office Building Project EIR.
ORIGINAL
7. File the Notice of Determination. Upon approval and adoption of the
project, the Planning Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the
County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to then provisions of Section 21152 of the Public
Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
8. The appeal of the Planning Commission decision recommending
certification of the EIR by Lizanne Reynolds of Adams, Broadwell and Joseph was duly
considered, and is hereby denied.
......... 000 ........
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
$EP I 0 1997 , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER DeMOND, CARSON, 8~13,1., McDERMOTT, f~r,,S, SULLIVAN, SALVAGG[O
NOES: COUNCILMEMbER Y~-~J~'~ -
ABSTAIN: ~UNCILME~,~ER .'~ ~ ~ ~
~N~ COUNCIlEMiR ~ ~
CITY CLERK and Ex of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED ?P 3. ~) 1997
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
CITY/~ORNEY
BY: ~u~t~ ~t
MJM
September 18, 1997
res\re0859-cc
4
QRI~I~^L
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT
IN SUPPORT OF CEQA FINDINGS
ORiGINAl:
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, § 21081; CEQA
GUIDELINES, § 15091 AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING
THE PROPOSED BAKERSFIELD HEART HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDING COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This document presents Findings and Facts in Support of Findings issued by the City of
Bakersfield concerning the significant effects addressed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex. These
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings are made in accordance with California Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, both as amended.
This document consists of the following sections:
Section I. Project Overview. This section briefly describes the location and key
development components of the proposed project.
Section II. Findings Regarding the Environmental Review Process. The Lead Agency's
fmdings with respect to the environmental review that was undertaken for the project are
provided in this section.
Section III. Findings Regarding the Significant Effects of the Proposed Project.. This
section presents the Lead Agency's f'mdings for each potentially significant environmental
effect addressed in the ErR for the proposed project. Also presented are thresholds of
significance associated with each environmental topic addressed in the EIR, facts in
support of any f'mdings made, and the project modifications and/or requirements aimed
at reducing the project's significant effects.
- Page I -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Section IV. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. Facts in support of
findings and the findings with respect to potential cumulative impacts are provided in this
section.
Section V. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Project Alternatives. This section
documents the facts in support of fmdings and the findings of the analysis of alternatives
considered in the EIR.
Section VI. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Long-Term and Growth-lnducing Impacts.
The facts in support of findings and the findings of the environmental analysis and review
regarding the project's long-term and growth-inducing impacts are provided in the
section.
I. Project Overview
Preface
The project overview which follows reflects the proposed project as subjected to environmental
assessment in the Draft EIR for the proposed project. However, it is noted that the Applicant's
initial set of General Plan Amendment applications submitted to the Lead Agency included a
proposed Circulation Element amendment which sought to modify the alignment of the future
northern extension of Oak Street from that presently depicted on the Comprehensive Circulation
Plan Map (2/21/96). This proposed amendment was fully described in Section 2.0, Project
Description, of the Lead Agency' s Initial Study. conducted for the proposed project. As indicated
above, the subject Initial Study accompanied the Notice of Preparation circulated by the Lead
Agency to Responsible Agencies, other public agencies, special districts, and private groups and
individuals having previously requested such notice. However, further Lead Agency review of
the proposed project has resulted in a determination that amending the Circulation Element of
the Metro 2010 General Plan as proposed was unnecessary for project implementation. As a
result, the subject application was withdrawn from further consideration. Given this: 1) the
subject proposed General Plan amendment was no longer a component of the proposed project
nor subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA; and, 2) as a consequence, no further
assessment of this prior component of the proposed project was provided in the Draft EIR.
- Page 2 -
ORIGINAL
BalcersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
The site of the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex is
located in the north-central area of the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. Relative
to downtown, the subject development site is located approximately one and one-half miles to
the northwest. The site of the proposed project is a presently-vacant 10.1-acre irregularly-
shaped parcel of land generally bounded by Sillect Avenue on the north, the Cross Valley Canal
and immediately adjacent parallel Kern River on the east, developed land on the west, and the
Riverside Drive cul-de-sac on the south. Primary access to the project site is from Sillect
Avenue, which, at its intersection with Pierce Road, in turn provides direct access to, and is
directly accessible from, northbound SR-99. Via Pieme Road, Sillect Avenue traffic also has
direct access to the Rosedale Highway/24th Street transportation corridor, a major east-west
Bakersfield travel route, as well as southbound SR-99.
The physical development associated with the proposed project comprises a cardiac hospital and
medical office building complex. These structures are located at approximately mid-site and
surrounded by either surface parking facilities or elements of the on-site circulation system. The
45,000-sq. ft. medical office building is sited along a north-south axis with its "front door"
facing west in the general direction of the hospital. The 130,000-sq. ft., 52 in-patient bed, 12
day-patient bed hospital comprises an L-shaped configuration, is sited southwest of the medical
office building, and faces north toward Sillect Avenue. An emergency helipad is proposed to be
located immediately south of the hospital in close proximity to its emergency facilities. The
proposed helipad is designed in full accord with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2A.
Primary site access will be from Sillect Avenue via three driveways - one at either end of the
site frontage along Sillect Avenue, and one just westerly of its mid-point. Secondary site access
will also be available from Riverside Drive via two driveways at either end of the site's frontage
along this roadway. The easternmost project driveway along Sillect Avenue is anticipated to
serve as the primary ambulance entrance due to its direct connection to the interior perimeter
road aligned parallel with, and immediately adjacent to, the Cross Valley Canal and its direct
access to the hospital's ambulance entrance and emergency room. The southernmost of the two
project driveways is proposed as the service entrance, due primarily to its direct access to the
rear of the hospital.
- Page 3 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
II. Findings Regarding the Environmental Review Process
The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency responsible for undertaking the environmental review
of the proposed project, makes the following findings with regard to the environmental review
process undertaken to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project:
In compliance with the provisions of Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, as amended, the City of Bakersfield, in its capacity as Lead Agency,
undertook the preparation of an Initial Study (IS) in order to ascertain whether or
not the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building
Complex may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study,
completed on January 30, 1997, identified a number of environmental topics
which might be significantly impacted by the construction and/or operation of the
proposed project. The environmental topics identified in this regard included:
Land Use and Planning, Earth Resources, Air Quality,
Transportation/Circulation, Noise, and Cumulative Effects. As a consequence,
the Lead Agency determined that the preparation of an EIR was required to
address both the extent of the proposed project's potential impacts on the
environment and identify appropriate mitigation measures and/or alternatives by
which to reduce any potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as
amended, the City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to Responsible Agencies, other public agencies, special
districts, and members of the public requesting such notice for a 30-day period
commencing February 3, 1997. The State Clearinghouse determined that the end
of the NOP circulation period for State Responsible Agencies would be March 12,
1997. The Lead Agency actually accepted all written responses received through
March 24, 1997. The aforementioned Initial Study was circulated with the NOP.
The Lead Agency received fourteen (14) written NOP responses, of which ten
(10) were from public agencies/quasi-public agencies. The NOP responses
- Page 4 -
,gR~GINAt_
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
received identified a variety of potential environmental issues and/or concerns
winch were suggested to be included among the environmental topics to be
addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. These included: 1) Traffic/Circulation
(Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts); 2) Utilities (Sanitary Sewerage); 3) Air Quality
(CO Concentrations and Cumulative Effects); 4) Economic and Social Effects
(Potential General Health Care Delivery System Impairment); 5) Risk of Upset
and Human Health (Emergency Response); 6) Biological Resources
(Avian/Helicopter Operation Compatibility); 7) Water Resources (Flooding -
Levee-Induced Levee Failure); 8) Risk of Upset and Human Health (Potential
Health Hazards); 9) Risk of Upset and Human Health (Risk of Hazardous
Substance Release and Construction-Related Exposures to Hazardous Substances);
10) Water Resources (Project and Cumulative Impacts on Water Supply); and, 11)
Hazards (Public Safety - Helicopter Operations). Of the foregoing, only one
additional issue, Emergency Medical Services, was added to the list of
environmental topics to be addressed in the Draft EIR. All others were either:
a) already planned to be addressed under one of the topics originally slated for
E]~ assessment; b) addressed via incorporation into the project description; c)
confamed as being insignificant and thus not subject to further environmental
review; and/or, d) based on conclusory statements and/or conjecture and not
supported by any substantial evidence.
As encouraged by Section 15083, the City of Bakersfield held a scoping meeting
for public agencies and the general public at 3:00 P.M. on Thursday, February
20, 1997. The Lead Agency's intent to hold the subject meeting was advertised
to the general public in the Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general
circulation. Public agencies received individual notices to this effect. The purpose
of the scoping meeting was to provide a forum in winch public agency
representatives and private citizens could provide input directly to the Lead
Agency with regard to further refining the scope and focus of this EIR as initially
described in the aforementioned NOP and Initial Study. No additional
environmental topics requiring assessment in the Draft EIR were raised at the
scoping meeting or otherwise identified.
- Page 5 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
[I.E.
Based on the foregoing preliminary review, requisite noticing and other scoping-
related activities, the Lead Agency proceeded to complete a Draft EIR which was
focussed to analyze the impacts of the proposed project in relation to the
following environmental topics: Land Use and Planning; Earth Resoumes; Air
Quality; Transportation/Circulation/Parking; Risk of Upset and Human Health
(Emergency Medical Services); and, Noise. Alternatives to the Proposed Action,
The Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project and Cumulative Impacts
were also addressed therein. The Draft EIR also provided the basis for why the
following environmental topics were not expected to be significantly affected by
the proposed project: Population and Housing; Water and Hydrology; Biological
Resources; Energy and Mineral Resources; Hazards; Public Services; Utilities and
Service Systems; Aesthetics; Cultural Resoumes; and, Recreation.
The Draft EIR for the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office
Building Complex was circulated for public and agency review for a 45-day
period commencing on May 7, 1997 and ending on June 20, 1997. In accordance
with the provisions of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, as amended, prior to, and concurrent with, circulating the Draft EIR,
the Lead Agency: 1) published a notice of availability of a Draft EIR in the
Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation; and, 2) prepared and
transmitted a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse,
respectively.
During the DEIR public review period, the Bakersfield Planning Commission held
a noticed and regularly-scheduled public hearing on June 5, 1997 for the purpose
of taking public testimony on the Draft EIR. The public was afforded the
opportunity to orally comment on the Draft EIR, and the testimony given was
duly heard and considered by the Bakersfield Planning Commission, and was duly
reviewed and considered by the Bakersfield City Council.
The Bakersfield Planning Commission also held a regularly- scheduled public
hearing on the proposed project on June 19, 1997. Since this public hearing
- Page 6 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
occurred prior to the end of the Draft EIR public review period, all public and
Planning Commissioner comments upon the Draft EIR were also evaluated and
responded to by the Lead Agency. Upon the close of the public review period,
the Lead Agency proceeded to evaluate and prepare responses to all written
comments received during the public review period as well as to comments made
during the public testimony given at the aforementioned June 5 and June 19, 1997
Planning Commission hearings.
//.1.
The Lead Agency received written correspondence concerning the Draft EIR from
seven (7) public agencies and six (6) private interests, some of whom submitted
multiple packages. Two (2) members of the public and three (3) Planning
Commissioners provided comments upon the Draft EIR during the June 5, 1997
Planning Commission hearing. During the June 19, 1997 Planning Commission
hearing, comments upon the Draft EIR were received from three (3) members of
the public and one (1) Planning Commissioner. In all, the Lead Agency provided
responses to approximately 180 comments on the Draft EIR.
The aforementioned comments and responses and other information consistent
with the requirements of Section 15132(b)(c)(d)(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
as amended, were provided in a separate stand-alone document. The earlier Draft
EIR, coupled with the Response to Comments stand-alone document, comprises
the Final EIR.
llI. Findings Regarding the Significant Effects of the Proposed Project
The environmental topics addressed in the EIR for the proposed project included: Land Use and
Planning; Earth Resources; Air Quality; Transportation/Circulation/Parking; Emergency Medical
Services; and, Noise. This section documents the Lead Agency fmdings with respect to the
results of the environmental analyses undertaken, the facts in support of the findings, and those
changes and alterations that have been made to the project to reduce or eliminate potentially
significant effects.
- Page 7-
ORIGb~AL
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IlI. A Land Use and Planning
IlL A. 1.
Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to define thresholds of significance for Land Use and Planning impacts
are taken from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G, a
project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on land use and
development if it results in a conflict with any adopted environmental plans and goals of
the community in which it is located.
III. A. 2. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
Land Use and Planning impacts in connection with the proposed project are anticipated
to occur. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a finding
pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
III. A . 3.
Facts In Support of Finding
The site of the proposed project is currently designated as SI (Service Industrial) and HC
(Highway Commercial) by the Land Use Element of the Metro 2010 Plan and
correspondingly, 7. 2 (Service Industrial) and 6.1 (Major Commercial) by the Kern River
Plan Element of the Metro 2010 Plan. North of the Kern River all surrounding lands are
similarly designated by both Elements.
The applicant seeks to amend the Metro 2010 Plan Land Use Element by changing the
current land use designations for the project site to (P) Public Facilities over its entire
10.1 acres. This land use designation is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element land use designations underlying other existing area hospitals. Correspondingly,
the Applicant seeks to amend the Kern River Plan Element of the Metro 2010 Plan by
changing the current land use designation for the project site to (3.3) Other Facilities.
- Page 8 -
ORIGINAL ¢:'
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. However, the proposed project is technically inconsistent
with Safety/Seismic Goal 7. This particular goal addresses the protection of land uses
from an Isabella Dam failure-related inundation risk. It further addresses ensuring the
availability of the functional capabilities of essential facilities such as the hospital
component of the proposed project should such an event occur.
Under a scenario in which the subject dam totally failed, was filled to capacity, and had
been subjected to a major seismic event, it is estimated that the site of the proposed
project would be subject to an inundation depth of about 5 feet. As currently designed,
such an occurrence would temporarily preclude the availability of, and access to, any
emergency medical resources located on the hospital's first floor by the general
community. While the foregoing are important considerations, when viewed in a context
which recognizes that the probability of such an event ever occurring as highly unlikely
(a < 1 in 10,000 years probability) and that, as such, the potential risk of the project
site's subjection to a dam failure-related inundation hazard is negligible, it is concluded
that while perhaps technically inconsistent with the subject Goal, it is so to a less than
significant extent.
The project site presently comprises two zoning classifications, one for each of the
aforementioned on-site areas. The eastern approximately one-third (3.39 acres) of the
project site is presently zoned M-1 (Light-Manufactun'ng), while the remainder of the
project site is zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial). The Applicant proposes to change the
two current project site zoning classifications to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial
DevelopmenO over the entire 10.1 acres comprising the development site. The Applicant
indicated that the basis for this request lies in the special commercial nature of the
hospital/medical office complex proposed on-site. As a mixed-commercial (albeit highly
interrelated) land use development which is also a community resource, its site and
building design pursuant to project- and site-specific development standards can best be
realized via the comprehensive Preliminary Development Plan requirements of the
P.C.D. zone as expressed in Title 17, Chapter 17, Subchapter 17.54.010 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code.
- Page 9 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
III. A.4.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Impacts.
In that it was determined that the proposed project would not cause a significant impact
upon Land Use and Planning, no mitigation measures are required.
III. A.5.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
Based on the threshold of significance criteria identified previously and the environmental
analysis, the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex
project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Land Use and
Planning.
III. B Earth Resources
11I. B.J.
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a
significant adverse environmental impact on the environment if it results in exposure of
people or structures to major geologic hazards or results in damage or destruction to
unique geologic features.
III. B. 2. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
Earth Resources-related impacts in connection with the proposed project are anticipated
to occur. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a finding
pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
- Page 10-
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
III. B. 3.
Facts In Support of Finding
The site of the proposed project is absent any earthquake faults and is relatively free of
on-site geotechnical development constraints. However, in that the project site is located
in a highly active seismic region and in relatively close proximity to several major fault
systems, it is subject to moderate-to-high seismic-induced ground shaking. Further, field
data revealed the presence of near-surface groundwater in conjunction with sandy, poorly
consolidated soils. Given this, liquefaction and seismic settlement would be expected to
accompany any seismic-induced ground shaking on the project site. Due to the hospital
component of the proposed project, its construction will be required to be in compliance
with seismic-related building codes and construction standards, which are the most
stringent available. With regard to engineering geologic reports supporting the
construction of health facilities, their preparation is a requirement of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Section 1634. Construction will
require compliance with the following CCR, Title 24 building codes: 1) 1994 - UBC and
1995 Amendments (95 California Building Code Part 2, Title 24, CCR); 2) 1993 - NEC
and 1995 California Amendments (95 California Electrical Code, Part 3, Title 24, CCR);
3) 1994 - UMC and 1995 California Amendments (95 California Mechanical Code, Part
4, Title 24, CCR); 4) 1994 - UPC and 1995 California Amendments (95 California
Plumbing Code, Part 5, Title 24, CCR); and, 5) 1994 - UFC and 1995 California
Amendments (95 California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24, CCR). Given this, no significant
earth resources impacts associated with the proposed project are anticipated.
III. B. 4.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Impacts.
In that it was determined that the proposed project would not cause a significant impact
upon Earth Resources, no mitigation measures are required.
- Page 11 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
Based on the threshold of significance criteria identified previously and the environmental
analysis, the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex
project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Earth Resources.
III. C Air Quality (Short-Term/Construction-Related)
III. C. 1.
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a
significant adverse environmental impact on air quality if it results in a conflict with
adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; results in
a violation of any ambient air quality standard, a significant contribution to an existing
or projected air quality violation, or results in exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
III. C. 2. Finding
The Lead Agency f'mds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of a significant
project-related impact upon air quality or reduce any such significant effects to acceptable
levels.
III. C. 3. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the proposed project will result in fugitive dust (PMm) and exhaust
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SIVUAPCD) does not have thresholds by which to determine
the significance of construction-related emissions. However, when compared to such
thresholds used by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the nitrogen oxide
- Page I2 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
emissions threshold would be exceeded. As a result, based solely on the foregoing
criteria, construction emissions are considered significant prior to mitigation.
III. C. 4.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Impacts
Adherence to the following mitigation measure will be a requirement of the proposed
project during all phases of project construction, as warranted.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1
The developer shall comply with the regulations of the San
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD regarding the control of
particulate emissions and fugitive dust during grading and
construction activities. PM~0 rules include: proper
maintenance of construction equipment, dust control
measures, use of soil binders, site watering, landscaping,
truck covers, etc., which have to be implemented until all
construction activities are completed. (AQAP Policy 29)
III. C. 5.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation
Project adherence to the foregoing mitigation measure during project construction will
reduce short-term construction-related emission volumes to less than significant levels.
II1. D Air Quality (Long-Term/Operations-Related)
III. D. 1. Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a
significant adverse environmental impact on air quality if it results in a conflict with
adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; results in
a violation of any ambient air quality standard, a significant contribution to an existing
or projected air quality violation, or results in exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
- Page 13 ~
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IlL D. 2. Finding
The Lead Agency finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of a significant
project-related impact upon air quality or reduce any such significant effects to acceptable
levels.
III. D.3.
Facts in Support of Findings
The greatest source of emissions on a long-term operational basis is attributed to mobile
souroes. Total daily vehicle emissions are projected to be approximately 26 pounds of
total organic gases, 186.5 pounds of carbon monoxide, 22.5 pounds of nitrogen oxides,
2.3 pounds of PM~o, and 1.5 pounds of sulfur dioxide. In addition to vehicular emissions,
emissions from power and natural gas consumption will result in long-term emissions at
on-site and off-site sources of power and gas generation. The foregoing long-term and
stationary source emissions are calculated to be below thresholds def'med by the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
III. D.4.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Impacts
Adherence to the following mitigation measure will be requirement of the proposed
project
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2
An information kiosk or display shall be provided on-site
indicating bus schedules and dial-a-ride phone numbers.
The plans for same shall be part of an application for
approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation
Project compliance with the foregoing mitigation measure will reduce long-term
operations-related emission volumes to less than significant levels.
- Page 14 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
III. E Transportation, Circulation, and Parking
III. E. 1.
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a
significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation if it causes an increase in traffic
which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system. The Kern County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires a minimum LOS
of E on all roads in the CMP network.
The threshold of significance for traffic impacts employed by the City of Bakersfield is
either the deter/oration of LOS below C or any further degradation in LOS for any
facility already operating below LOS C.
III. E. 2. Finding
The Lead Agency f'mds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of a significant
project-related impact upon traffic and circulation or reduce any such significant effects
to acceptable levels.
III. E. 3.
Facts in Support of Finding
There occur several areawide circulation system deficiencies in the general project area.
Although the proposed project is not expected to significantly affect such facilities, it will
incrementally contribute to future traffic volumes which are expected to increase due to
ambient growth and cumulative development.
The proposed project is anticipated to insignificantly impact all intersections studied, with
the exception of that at Pierce Road/Sillect Avenue. The Level of Service at that
intersection would decrease from LOS C to LOS D in 1998, the first year of operations
of the proposed project. Unmitigated, this potential traffic impact is considered
significant.
- Page 15 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
With regard to parking and the relationship between on-site pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, the traffic study prepared for the proposed project reports that: 1) the
project's parking supply meets or exceeds the City's standards for the types of facilities
associated with the proposed project; and, 2) no areas conducive to causing
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts were identified. As a result, no significant impacts in this
regard are anticipated.
III. E. 4.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Impacts
Adherence to the following mitigation measures will be a requirement of the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measure 5.4-1
The Applicant shall contribute fees to the Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Program. As a consequence, the
proposed project's proportionate contribution to impacts
upon the Rosedale Highway/Fruitvale Avenue intersection
shall be satisfied.
Mitigation Measure 5.4-2
The intersection of Pieme Road/Sillect Avenue shall be
restriped from the westbound approach to have one left
lane and one left/thru/right lane, with the eastbound
approach restriped to one left lane and one thru/right lane.
III. E. 5.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
Project compliance with the foregoing mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed
project does not cause a significant project-specific or cumulatively significant impact on
traffic/circulation and parking.
III. F Risk of Upset and Human Health (Emergency Medical Services)
III. F. 1.
Thresholds of Significance
Emergency Medical Services is not an environmental factor for which an impact
significance threshold is presented among those listed in Appendix G, Significant Effects,
- Page 16-
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical OJ~ce Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. However, Item (z) of the subject State
CEQA Guidelines Appendix appears to at least be indirectly applicable. It states that a
project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: "(z) Interfere
with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans."
It is noted that no known performance criteria by which to determine the significance of
a project's impacts upon an emergency medical services system were identified during
discussions and telephone conversations with senior Kern County Emergency Medical
Services Depa, tuient and area hospital officials. As a consequence, the determination of
impact significance as related to emergency medical services was made based upon
numerous interviews with Kern County EMS personnel, hospital administrators, the
project proponent, other health care personnel, review and analysis of applicable
documents and statistical information, and upon the principal investigator's best
professional judgement and experience.
III. F. 2. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
impacts upon the area emergency medical services system attributable to the proposed
project were anticipated. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that
making a finding pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended,
is unwarranted.
Facts in Support of Finding
Responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated in connection with the proposed
project expressed a concern that the addition of another emergency room may generally
adversely affect the existing emergency medical services system in the area, and more
specifically the operations of the Kern County Emergency Medical Services Depat tatent.
One measure of local emergency services system utilization and efficiency is the number
of times a hospital is on EMS Depatttuent "saturation" or "closed status,, or the system
is on a "closest hospital status., According to Kern County EMS data, local emergency
rooms were on saturation status an average of 10.4% of the time from Februa~ 1996
through January 1997. County EMS Depatt~ent officials indicated that this performance
- Page 17-
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
record constituted an insufficient basis for adding to the capacity of the existing
emergency medical services system at this time.
According to County EMS Department officials, the addition of emergency room beds
would create additional work for EMS Department employees. Work included in this
category would include, but not necessarily be limited to: 1) monitoring the additional
facility's daily status; and, 2) collecting, reviewing, and analyzing additional PCR
Transport Forms. Consultations with key Kern County EMS Department officials
regarding this issue were held in order to solicit their best estimates of exactly what such
an increased demand upon EMS Depa, tment personnel meant in terms of cost and
personnel requirements. No estimates were forthcoming from EMS Department officials
when queried in this regard.
A commonly held view among all those interviewed as part of the study was that the
addition of an emergency room to the emergency services network would result in an
increase in interfacility transfers. The interviewees comprised senior Kern County EMS
Department officials, area hospital executives, and ambulance company representatives,
among others. However, at the conclusion of the study conducted, no evidence was
provided by the interviewees, the documents provided, or the statistical data collected,
or in the judgment or experience of the principal investigator, that there would be any
significant or potentially significant impacts upon the area emergency services system,
resulting from the project.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
impacts upon the area emergency medical services system attributable to the proposed
project were anticipated. As a consequence, no mitigation measures are required.
III. F. 5.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
In that no mitigation measures are required of the proposed project in connection with
this issue, the level of significance of any project-related environmental impacts upon the
area emergency services system would be insignificant.
- Page 18-
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
III. G Noise
III. G. 1. Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a
significant impact on the environment if it results in a substantial increase in the ambient
noise levels within the adjoining areas. An increase of 5 dBA is perceptible to most
persons and may be considered a threshold of significance for noise impacts. In addition,
the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan establishes a
maximum exterior noise level of 65 dB CNEL and a maximum interior noise level of 45
dB CNEL for noise-sensitive land uses.
lli. G. 2. Finding
The Lead Agency finds that changes or alterations have been required of, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of a significant
project-related impact upon noise or reduce any such significant effects to acceptable
levels.
III. G. 3. Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities will result in noise levels ranging from 65 to 88 dBA, depending
on the number and types of equipment that are in operation during a given period of
time. Noise levels fifty feet from a consauction site are estimated to range from 75 to
89 dBA during various phases of consauction, with the noisiest equipment generating
noise levels of 85 to 98 dBA. At 100 feet, the peak consauction noise will be
approximately 64 to 89 dBA. At 200 feet, the peak construction noise will be
approximately 58 to 83 dBA. Beyond 500 feet, the rate of noise reduction in relation to
distance is even greater.
Long-term noise associated with the proposed project will be generated by three primary
sources: vehicular traffic, helicopter operations, and ambulance sirens. The noise study
prepared for the proposed project concluded that at the nearest sensitive receptor
(approximate 850 feet to the southeast), no significant project-related noise impacts would
OCCur.
- Page 19 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Impacts.
The implementation of the following mitigation measures identified as part of the
project's environmental review will further reduce the potential noise impacts to levels
deemed less than significant:
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1
Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and shall be
prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays in order to
minimize disruption to existing residential neighborhoods.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2
All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile-
operated shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers.
III. G. 5.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
Based on the thresholds of significance criteria and the environmental analysis described
previously, Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building Complex will not
result in significant adverse impacts relating to noise, upon implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
IV. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Cumulative Impacts
Introduction
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project indicated that the proposed
development may yield or be contributory to potentially significant cumulative effects.
As a result, pursuant to Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended,
the subject EIR provided a cumulative impact assessment for each environmental topic
which reflected the potential severity and probability of occurrence associated with each.
Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, provides the following
definition of cumulative impacts: "Cumulative impacts refers to two or more individual
- Page 20 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
effects which. when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts." Where a cumulative impact involves two or more
individual effects, it is noted that such effects can either be internal to, and confined
solely to, a proposed development itself, or also be attributable to other external projects,
producing related or cumulative effects.
Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A), such external projects must be listed
and include all those which are past, present, or reasonably anticipated to yet occur, even
if outside the control of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency developed the list of related
projects based on information obtained from its own files, the County of Kern, and a
review of several secondary data souroes. The following criteria were applied to the
identification process: 1) a "present project" comprised any project which was either
being considered for approval, or had recently been approved, and where their
construction was either underway or appeared imminent; a "reasonably foreseeable
future project" included those which were either pending approval or had recently been
approved, but whose construction clearly warranted one or more subsequent discretionary
approvals before commencing; and, 3) a "past project" was one recently constructed and
operational and in sufficiently close proximity to the site of a proposed project to affect
some form of potentially significant adverse interactive effect. A total of eleven (11)
related projects were identified.
IV.A
Land Use and Planning
IV.A. J. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative Land Use and Planning-related impacts attributable to the proposed project
were anticipated. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a
f'mding pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as mended, is
unwarranted.
Facts in Support of Finding
With regard to the proposed project, the primary potential Land Use and Planning
impacts concerned General Plan consistency and land use compatibility. Other than the
- Page 21 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
surface parking facility recently constructed for the adjacent Buck Owens Building
complex, none of the related projects are sufficiently proximal to the site of the proposed
project to merit the consideration of a potential land use compatibility issue. Therefore,
this component of Land Use and Planning was not addressed as a cumulative concern in
the project EIR. Regarding General Plan consistency, it is noted that most of the related
projects are of relatively small size, and only one involved an amendment to the General
Plan. Given this, relative to the fact that the proposed project was determined to be
consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, no significant Land Use
and Planning cumulative effects were identified.
IV.A.3.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts in connection with the proposed project were
anticipated. As a consequence, no mitigation measures are required.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
In that no mitigation measures are required in connection with this issue, the level of
significance of any cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts would remain
insignificant.
IV.B. Earth Resources
IV. B. I. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative Earth Resoumes-related impacts in connection with the proposed project were
anticipated. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a finding
pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
- Page 22 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IV.B. 2.
Facts In Support of Finding
Except for the surface parking facility recently constructed for the adjacent Buck Owens
Building complex, none of the related projects are in a sufficiently close proximity to the
site of the proposed project to share site-specific geologic attributes which may be
individually benign but interactively risk-posing.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative Earth Resources-related impacts in connection with the proposed project were
anticipated. As a consequence, no mitigation measures are required.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
In that no mitigation measures are required in connection with this issue, the level of
significance of any cumulative Earth Resources impacts would remain insignificant.
IV.C Air Quality
IV. C. 1. Findings
(Short-Term/Construction-Related) - As indicated under Item III.C. above, the Lead
Agency found that changes or alterations will have been required of, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of significant short-
term construction-related impacts upon Air Quality or reduce any such significant effects
to acceptable levels. It is assumed that all construction projects among the related projects
are or will also be required to comply with the same types of emissions control and
management measures as the proposed project. The Final Ell>, for the proposed project
found that no significant or potentially significant post-mitigation short-terrn/constmction-
related cumulative Air Quality impacts in connection with the proposed project were
anticipated. As a consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a fmding
pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, in this regard is
unwarranted.
- Page 23 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complete FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
(Long-Term/Operations-Related) - The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no
significant or potentially significant long-term cumulative Air Quality-related impacts in
connection with the proposed project were anticipated. As a consequence, the Lead
Agency hereby determines that making a finding pursuant to Section 15091 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
IV.C. 2.
Facts in Support of Findings
All construction activities within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SIVUAPCD) must comply with construction emission
reduction measures required by the District. The APCD has developed a program with
a variety of construction-related emissions reduction measures specifically designed to
control fugitive dust during grading (e.g., regular watering of the soil or the use of soil
binders which can reduce fugitive dust generation by as much as 50 percent). Regulation
VII of the APCD specifies measures designed to control fugitive dust and particulates.
Rule 8010 includes administrative requirements, Rule 8020 applies to construction
activities, and Rule 8070 applies to vehicle and equipment parking, service, and fueling
activities.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative Air Quality-related impacts in connection with the proposed project were
anticipated. As a consequence, no mitigation measures are required.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
In that no mitigation measures are required in connection with this issue, the level of
significance of any cumulative Air Quality impacts would remain insignificant.
- Page 24-
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IV.D Transportation, Circulation and Parking
IV.D. 1. Finding
The Lead Agency finds that changes or alterations have been required of, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which will either preclude the occurrence of significant project-
related cumulative traffic impacts or reduce any such significant effects to acceptable
levels.
IV.D.2. Facts in Support of Finding
There occur several areawide circulation system deficiencies in the general project area.
Although the proposed project is not expected to significantly affect such facilities, it will
incrementally contribute to future traffic volumes which are expected to increase due to
ambient growth and cumulative development. The Lead Agency, in concert with the
County of Kern, KernCOG, and Caltrans have embarked on a program by which to
facilitate future development and its requirements for adequate roadway capacities and
traffic control efficiencies. As a consequence, new development must pay its fair share
of the overall costs for future circulation system improvements.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
Adherence to the following mitigation measures will be a requirement of the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measure 5.4-1
The Applicant shall contribute fees to the Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Program. As a consequence, the
proposed projeet's proportionate contribution to impacts
upon the Rosedale Highway/Fruitvale Avenue intersection
shall be satisfied.
Mitigation Measure 5.4-2
The intersection of Pierce Road/Sillect Avenue shall be
reswiped from the westbound approach to have one left
- Page 25 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
lane and one left/thru/tight lane, with the eastbound
approach restriped to one left lane and one thru/right lane.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
Project compliance with the foregoing mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed
project does not cause a significant project-specific or cumulatively significant impact on
traffic/circulation and parking.
IV.E. Risk of Upset and Human Health (Emergency Medical Services)
IV.E. 1. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative impacts antibumble to the proposed project were anticipated. As a
consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a f'mding pursuant to
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
Facts in Support of Finding
As discussed under Item III.F. above, the primary focus of this issue was to address
concerns that the addition of another emergency room may generally adversely affect the
existing emergency medical services system in the area, and more specifically the
operations of the Kern County Emergency Medical Services Department. It is noted that
there were no other known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects with
any hint of having emergency room characteristics. The review, analysis, and study
conducted in the area of Risk of Upset and Human Health, as discussed in Section III.F
above, were by nature cumulative, in that the study focused on impacts to the County-
wide EMS system. Therefore, the facts discussed in Section III.F.3 above are applicable
here and are incorporated by reference.
- Page 26 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IKE. 3.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative impacts concerning emergency medical services were anticipated. As a
consequence, no mitigation measures are required.
IKE. 4.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
In that no mitigation measures are required in connection with this issue, the level of
significance of any cumulative impacts on emergency medical services would remain
insignificant.
IV.F Noise
1V.F. 1. Finding
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative noise impacts attributable to the proposed project were anticipated. As a
consequence, the Lead Agency hereby determines that making a finding pursuant to
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, is unwarranted.
Facts in Support of Findings
Long-term noise associated with the proposed project will be generated by three prim. a~
sources: vehicular traffic, helicopter operations, and ambulance sirens. The noise study
prepared for the proposed project concluded that at the nearest sensitive receptor
(approximately 850 ft. to the southeast), no significant project-related noise impacts
would occur.
- Page 27-
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
IV.F. 3.
Changes/Alterations to the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant
Cumulative Impacts.
The Final EIR for the proposed project found that no significant or potentially significant
cumulative impacts concerning noise were anticipated. As a consequence, no mitigation
measures are required.
Findings Regarding Impact Significance Following Mitigation.
No mitigation measures am required in connection with this issue.
V. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Project Alternatives
Discussion
Pursuant to Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the EIR prepared for
the proposed project included a discussion of alternatives. The purpose for doing so is because
EI]Ls must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on
the environment. In that context, the Lead Agency considered alternatives to be the functional
equivalent of a mitigation measure.
The Final EIR prepared for the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office Building
Complex concluded that all identified potentially significant and/or significant impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measure compliance alone. The Lead Agency
determined this projected outcome to be a suitable basis for not including an assessment of an
off-site alternative. Due to the mitigation measure program's projected effectiveness, the
alternatives discussion comprised a comparison between the proposed project's environmental
effects and those which might be expected were the site to be developed in some alternative, but
authorized, manner.
The alternatives discussed in the FEIR included the following:
Alternative No. 1, No Project (No Development) Under this alternative, it is assumed
that the project site remains in its current vacant state indefinitely.
- Page 28 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Alternative No. 2, No Project (Development In Accord With Existing Metro 2010
General Plan Land Use Designations) Under this Alternative, it is assumed that the
project site would be developed with a medical complex built to maximum intensity
allowable by the site's existing General Plan land use designations and attendant zoning
classifications at the site's full development potential comprising a 90,000-s.f. medical
office building, and 390,000-s.f. 190-bed, six-story full-service hospital.
Alternative No.3, No Project, (Development In Accord With Existing Metro 2010
General Plan Land Use Designations) Under this Alternative it was assumed that the site
would be developed with approximately 220,000 s.f. of mixed-commercial uses including
a "big box" retailer of approximately 130,000 s.f.
V.A. I. Findings
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project due
primarily to the substantially greater extent of development intensity and concomitant
increases in the occurrence of demand-driven impacts. With regard to physical impacts
on the site of the proposed project, the proposed project and Alternative Nos. 2 and 3
would be expected to have effects which are comparable. The table on the following page
provides a comparative summary of the effects of each alternative relative to those of the
proposed project.
V.A.2.
Facts in Support of Findings
The existing General Plan designations for the project site are $I (Service Industrial) and
HC (Highway Commercial). The SI portion comprises 3.39 acres (147,668 s.f.), while
the HC portion comprises 6.71 acres (292,288 s.f.). Thus, the total area of the project
site is almost 440,000 s.f. The corresponding zoning designations would be M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) and C-2 (General Commercial), respectively.
- Page 29 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
ALTERNATIVES-PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT COMPARISON MATRIX AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 1
Environmental No Project - No
Factor Proposed Project Development
Land Use and Consistent with Metro 2010 Same as
Piarming General PIan Goals/Policies
Earth Resources People/structures exposed to Less Than
Seismic-Induced
Groundshaking &
Liquefaction]
Seismic Settlement
Alternative 2
No Project -
Development In
Accord With Existing
L.U. Designations
(Medical Complex)
Greater Than
Air Quality Mitigable Significant Short- Less Than Same as
Term Emissions
Air Quality Insignificant Long-Term Less Than Greater Than
Emissions
Traffic/ 2,739 ADT Less Than Greater Than
Circulation/ 198 AM Peak Hour Trips
Parking 153 PM Peak Hour Trips
Noise Insignificant Noise Impacts Less Than Greatar Than
Emergency Insignificant Impacts Less Than Greater Than
Medical
Services
Cumulative Insignificant Impacts Less Than Greater Than
Effects
Overall N/A Environmentally Environmentally
Environmental Superior Inferior
Impact in
Comparison to
the Proposed
Project
Environmentally Environmentally
Superior Superior
Alternative Altarnative
Among
Altarnatives
(Excluding
Alternative 1)
Alternative 3
No Project -
Development In
Accord With Existing
L.U. Designations
(Mixed-Coramercial)
Same as
Greater Than
Greater Than
Greater Than
Greater Than
Less Than
Greater Than
Environmentally
Inferior
- Page 30 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Under Alternative No. 2, a medical office building and hospital are permissible uses
within the M-1 and C-2 zones, respectively, assuming maximum development intensity
within allowable building height, floor to area ratio, and site coverage parameters.
Notwithstanding any other constraints, a medical complex comprised of a 90,000-s.f.,
six-story medical office building and 190-bed six story hospital of approximately 390,000
s.f. with attendant structured parking could be developed. Under Alternative No.3, when
applying the same development parameters to a mixed-commercial development (FAR
not-to-exceed 1:2), approximately 220,000 s.f. of commercial uses could also be
developed on-site.
VI. Findings Regarding the Analysis of Long-Term and Growth-Inducing Impacts
VI.A.
Findings Regarding Significant Long-Term Impacts.
The development will commit nonrenewable resources to uses that will in turn become
unavailable for use by future generations. The irreversible changes associated with the
proposed medical complex development are identified below.
The project will result in the transition of the development site from an
undeveloped parcel to a commercial/quasi-public land use activity node. The
development planned for the site represents a long-term irreversible commitment
to medically-oriented commercial uses on-site. This commitment is likely to
remain over the operational life of the planned improvements.
The project will involve the covering of more than 90 percent of the site with
impermeable surfaces, resulting in increased site runoff. Storm water runoff from
the development will be diverted into an on-site storm drain facility and
discharged into the Kern River. The project will also represent an additional
consumer of water for domestic purposes. This water consumption will continue
over the operational life of the project.
The project will represent a new source of both stationary and mobile emissions
within the local air basin. The development is permissible under the Land Use
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Nevertheless,
emissions (both direct and indirect) will occur over the life of the development.
Technological innovations and future regulations may result in a reduction of
emissions over the long-term.
The project will generate vehicular traffic (approximately 2,739 daily trips) over
the life of the development. The projected increases will alter the existing levels
of service on local roadways and contribute to declines in the overall operational
levels of service for roadways and intersections located in the area, which will be
- Page 31 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office BuiMing Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
VI.B.
VI.C.
offset by the project's participation in roadway improvements. The traffic
analysis undertaken as part of the EIR's preparation indicated that the Level of
Service of key intersections will be maintained to adequate service levels with the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
The project will require the provision of certain public services, including fzre
protection and police protection. These service demands will remain as long as
the complex is in operation, although the impacts on service providers are not
considered significant adverse impacts.
The project will effect an increase in the interfacility transfer component of the
Kern County emergency medical services system. This increase would be
expected to occur for the life of the project.
The project will result in an increase in the demand on public utilities (water
service, sewer service, storm drainage, solid waste disposal, power and gas
service) over the life of the project. The infrastructure that will be required to
serve the development represents a long-term commitment of resources. The
increased demand for utilities, according to the purveyors providing such
services, can be met by existing facilities and resources for which the utilities are
compensated.
The aforementioned impacts are not considered significant adverse impacts, since the
development and appropriate support for it are envisioned under the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings Regarding Long-Term Impacts
Implementation of the project represents a long-term commitment of the site to
commercial/quasi-public development. Once development occurs, the site would then
be committed to the commercial uses over the operational life of the improvements.
Construction and subsequent operation of the proposed Bakersfield Heart Hospital and
Medical Office Building Complex development will conunit the land to a medically-
oriented commercial use, and other types of uses prohibited under previous approvals,
the general plan, and the zoning ordinance would not be permitted. In addition, the
physical arrangement and design of the planned improvements (buildings, parking areas,
infrastructure, etc.) would limit future development or redevelopment options.
Findings Regarding Growth-Inducement
The Lead Agency hereby makes the following findings with respect to growth-inducing
impacts:
- Page 32 -
BakersfieM Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
VI.D.
The infrastructure improvements on-site are not anticipated to induce additional
development or growth in the vicinity.
The roadway improvement required to serve this project will not lead to any new
development or provide service to areas not already connected to the areawide
circulation system.
Future development in these areas is likely to reflect the development anticipated
under the general plan.
The addition of new job opportunities is not likely to translate into a major
growth-inducing impact due to the City's current level of unemployment and
competent highly-skilled medical professionals. In addition, the City is jobs
poor/housing rich, and this development will contribute to an improvement in the
region's overall jobs/housing balance.
The aforementioned impacts are not considered significant adverse impacts, since the
development is envisioned under the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings Regarding Growth-Inducement
The development proposed as part of the Bakersfield Heart Hospital and Medical Office
Building complex will be consistent with the anticipated uses of the project site allowed
by the Metro 2010 General Plan. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding
existing and planned uses and would not be introducing a new development pattern into
the vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be inducing
growth through the reclassification of land use designations.
An increase in demand for goods and services may result from the daily operations of
the proposed project. However, the development envisioned for the proposed project site
is not of sufficient scale in and of itself to promote the development of new commercial
uses. Therefore, with respect to the potential for increased localized demands for goods
and services to occur at levels sufficient to induce commercial development, growth-
inducing impacts are also considered insignificant.
In that the project does not involve the substantive expansion or extension of public
infrastructure and/or improvements into areas presently devoid of such improvements,
no growth-inducing impacts are expected as a remit of the proposed project in this
regard.
With respect to the potential for population inmigration to fill project-related employment
oppommities which in turn could induce residential development, the growth-inducing
- Page 33 -
Bakersfield Heart Hospital and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15091 FINDINGS and
Medical Office Building Complex FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
potential of the proposed project is considered insignificant impact in that most of the
employment oppommities generated by the proposed project are expected to be filled by
the local labor pool.
- Page 34-
I~(11IBIT
MITIGATION MONITORING PI,AN
Miligalim!
Mensare
M/rig'unica Areasare 4.3-1 The dcveh]pcr shall c()mply wilh die rcgulalions of Ihc Sail J.aqui.
Valky Unified A~D regarding Ihc COnlfol of parc]cubic emissions and ~gi[ive d~sl (hiring
grading a~ consifil]on aclivi[ics. PMIO ~ulcs indmle: proper mainlenancc of cons[mellon
equip~nl. dust conlrol ineasnfes. use nf soil hi.clefs, she walcring. landseal,lag, Iruck cove[s,
elc.. which have IO be implemcnlcd mail all consl~uClioa aclivilics ale coalpitied. (AQAP Pnli~ y
29)
~i~A ~easerl 4.~-~ All con51[uclion vehicles .i ~quipnlenl fixed n[ in.l~ile opelalcd shall
equ~d wilh p~dy i~eraling and mainlain~d re.filers
Approved
by:
....... .............. ......................
II/liltgathm a'/easl~re $.4-2 The interseclinu nl Pierce RoadiS]lice! Avenue shall be rcslripcd I'mm
Ihe we$1bound approach Io have one left lane and mm lefi/Ihruhighl lane, wilh Ihc easlh. Lmd
approach resif]pad Io one left lane and one Ilnu/r~ghl lane.
Verification of Compliance
I':ngineering I fiuihllng and
'Iralli¢ Safety
Approved
hy:
Approved
by:
fill
Mi~on MeAsure 4. J-2 Au informalion kiosk or display shall be provided on-sile indicalinn hus Approved
schedules and dill-l-ride phnue numbers. The ida,es fi)r same shall he parr ()f an applicali.n I,)r by:
approval of a cmnprehensive sign plan.
I~ ' shall be lira]led to Ihc lionrs of '~:00 ant. to ?:00 pnl ,
~lJtJ~UdOU ~/~easn~'e 4.5-1 COllStlUCllon *
Monday Ihrough $almday, and shall be prohibited m~ Sunilay5 and Federal holidays i. m&r t.
minimize disruption it} axisling residcalial neighh.dm.ds.
Hidden MaeA#r~ 4.4-2 The inlcrsccliml of I'ic~cc RoadlSillecl Avenue shall be resif]pod Ironl
Ihe '~5.~'.4bound approach I. have oue kfi lane and ()nc Icfi/Ihrnhighl lane. will] Ihc easthmmd
approach rcstripnd 1o one left laae a.d one Ihru/rlght Jane.
Approved
by:
on
Approved I)y: