HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 99-00RESOLUTION NO. 9 9 - 00
RESOLUTION OF 'FHE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD DECLARING IT HAS RECEIVED, REVIEWED,
EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT AND FINAL PROGRAM EIR FOR
THE GPA/ZC NO. P99-0482 PROJECT; MAKING FINDINGS AND
CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR HAS BEEN
COMPLETED IN COIIVIPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES
AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CEQA IMPLEMENTATION
PROCEDURES. (RE: GPA/ZC NO. P99-0482)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with
the provisions of Section 6535:3 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE
12, 2000, and THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000, on General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0482
of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least
ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such Program Environmental Impact Rel~ort (EIR) is for Concurrent
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. P99-0482 as follows:
General Plan Amendment P99-0482:
Kyie Carter and the North of the River Sanitation District have
applied to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan consisting of changes as follows: General Plan
Amendment from LI (Light Industrial), SI (Service Industrial) and HI
(Heavy Industrial) to LR (Low Density Residential), LMR (Low Medium
Density Residential) anc~; GC (General Commercial) on 170.90 acres,
located generally south of Olive Drive, between Fruitvale Avenue and
State Route 99; and
Amendment of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan consisting of a change to eliminate Mohawk Street as
an Arterial nortih of Hageman Road to Olive Drive, to change Hageman
Road 'From a ,Collector to an Arterial between Mohawk Street and
Knudsen Drive, along with modifying the alignment by swinging it to the
north a few hundred feet, and to establish a Collector segment for
Hageman Road between Knudsen Drive to State Route 99/State Route
204.
Zone Change P99-0482:
Kyle Carter and The North of the River Sanitation District have
applied for a Zone Change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing), M-2 (General
Manufacturing) and M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
zone on 64.58 acres, R-2 (Limited Multipie-Family Dwelling) zone on
91.84 acres, and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on 14.48 acres,
located generally south of Olive Drive, between Fruitvale Avenue and
State Route 99; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described projects, an Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation (NOP) was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would have a
significant effect on the environment and therefore, a Program Environmental Impact Report was
required for the project and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, in order to provide greater public participation, all those property owners
within 300 feet and all those who requested notification at a Planning Commission public hearing
or requested special notice to the Development Services Department were noticed individually of
the availability of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and this public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project
includes the following:
The Notice of Preparation, the Draft F:'rogram Environmental Impact Report and the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report; and
All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and other
documents prepared by the consultants relating to the project; and
All testimony, documents, and evidence presented by the City and consultants
working with the city relating to the project; and
The proceedings before the Ranning Commission relating to the project and Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report, including testimony and documenting
evidence introduced at the public hearings; and
Matters of common knowledge to the City Council which it considers including but
not limited to, the following:
The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan; and
2. The City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance; and
3. The City of Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
Other formally adopted policies and ordinances of the City
of Bakersfield.
WHEREAS, the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report was subject to a forty-
five (45) day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of California Code of Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
was held during the latter half of the public review period as is required by the City of Bakersfield,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Implementation Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project was sent to all agencies
having any involv,ement in this project per Section 15082 of California Code of Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the notice of public hearing was given to all commenting agencies as
is required by the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, State CEQA Guidelines
and State Law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has entered into an agreement with the City of Bakersfield
to implement all mitigation measures identified in the environmental analysis contained with the El R;
and
WHEREAS, the! project site is a portien of an irregular shaped parcel consisting of
504.33 acres that was annexed to the City of Bakersfield on April 24, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the "Findings of Fact in support of Findings for Significant Environmental
Effects" for GPA/ZC P99-0482 is attached in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, the! "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for GPNZC P99-0482 is
attached hereto in Exhibit "B" and made a part hereef by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Environmental Impacl Reports as set forth in the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation
Procedures and State CEQA Guidelines, have been duly followed by the city staff and the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, Potentially Significant Impacts have been mitigated, see Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which describes those impacts
identified by the Draft Program Environmental tmpaot Report that will be mitigated to a less than
significant level. As to each of said impacts, the City Council hereby finds that mitigation
incorporated into the project will avoid irnpacts or mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.
Each of the impacts including the Findings of Fact in support of Findings for Significant
Environmental Effects for GPA/ZC P99-0482 is as set forth in Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, as, to Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, certain environmental
impacts are considered unavoidable and cannot feasiblely be mitigated to a less-than significant
level. Moreover, the project elternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR would not feasiblely
mitigate the impacts. These impacts are discussed in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts and their partial mitigation,
the Planning Commission elected to recommend approval of the project due to overriding
considerations as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" attached as Exhibit "B".
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the City Council of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
The above recitals and findings, together with the Statement of
Facts/Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
and incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct and constitute the
Findings of the City Council in this matter.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, has been transmitted by the Secretary of the
Planning Commission to the City Council.
3. That all required notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have
been followed.
That the applicant by prior 'written agreement shall comply with all adopted
mitigation measures contained within the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report and Final Program Environmental Impact Report.
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation incorporated into the project
avoids impacts or mitigates impacts to less than significant level. Each of the
impacts, and the facts substantiating this finding are as set forth in Exhibit "A".
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Certain environmental impacts are
considered unavoidable and cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less-than
significant level. Moreover, the project alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR
would not feasibly mitigate the impacts. These impacts are discussed in
Exhibit "A". Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts and their partial
mitigation, the City Council elects to approve the project due to overriding
considerations as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations"
as attached as Exhibit "B".
Filing of Notice of Determination. The Planning Division of the Development
Services Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk: of Kern County, pursuant to the provisions of Section
21152 of the Pubtic Resources Code and Section 15094 of the State CEQA
Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
A Mitigation Monil:oring Plan describing the monitoring the mitigation is found
in the Program Environmental Impact Report and the City Council elects to
approve; this plan as implementation of the mitigation measures for the
General Plan AmendmentJZone Change No. P99-0482.
10.
The City Council hereby certifies the Program Environmental Impact Report
for GPA/ZC P99-0482.
I HEI~EBY CEI~TIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ^UG 1_ 6 Z001)
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MACCARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO.,~'~-~,~.I~
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AUG ]-6
City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
BART THILTGEN
City Attorney
By: ~'~Z~~___
MO:pah
S:\Gpa%lune\P990482 Ky~e Carter EIR\RES\eir cert 0482-ccl .wpd
5
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0482
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The following statement of facts and findings have been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CE-'QA) and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 provides 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 effects on the environment that would occur
if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following
findings:
The following potential significant impacts of the proposed project have been separated into three
categories:
(1) Those potential impacts that have been determined to be less than significant, based
on review of available information in the project record, and in consideration of existing standard
development review requirements and existing codes and regulations;
(2) Those potential impacts that could be mitigated to a level that is considered less than
significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; and
(3) Those potential impacts that could not be reduced with the implementation of the
existing policies and standards and the recommended mitigation measures, although the i~mpacts
would remain signifioant (e.g. cannot be reduced to a less than significant level).
For potentially significant impacts (categories (2) and (3) above), the City of Bakersfield has made
one of the following three findings for each potentially significant impact and provides facts in
support of each finding in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment,
2. Those c;hanges or alterations ,are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public ,agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental
impact report."
Page 1 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
The Final EIR for General Plan Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482 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 Overriding Considerations is provided.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program will be adopted as part of the project Resolution.
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The project is a concurrent application for an amendment to the Land Use Element and Circulation
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and a Zone Change to allow residential
and commercial uses on 170.90 acres.
The amendment to the land use designations consists of changes from LI (Light Industrial), SI
(Service Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 64.58 acres, LMR
(Low Medium Density Residential) on 91.84 acres and GC (General Commercial) on 14.48 acres.
The proposed project includes 727 dwelling units, which consist of 218 low density residential units
and 509 low medium density nesidential units, The project includes approximately 116,800 square
feet of commercial uses. The amendment to the Circulation Element consists of changes by
deleting Mohawk Street as an Arterial north of Hageman Road to Olive Drive, changing Hageman
Road from a Collector to an Arterial between Mohawk Street and Knudsen Drive/Landco Drive,
along with modifying the align~rnent by swinging it to the north a few hundred feet, and to establish
a Collector segment for Hags;man Road between Knudsen Drive/Landco Drive to State Route
99/State Route 204, and to amend the zoning from M-1 (Light Manufacturing), M-2 (General
Manufacturing) and M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 64.58 acres, R-2
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 91,84 acres and C-2 (Regional Commercial) zones on 14.48
acres.
1.3 FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker for the project, has reviewed and
considered the information contained in both the Dnaft and Final EIRs prepared for General Plan
Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482 and the public record. The Lead Agency makes the
following findings, pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines:
1. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker, having reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for General Plan
Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482 and the public record, finds that changes or alterations to
the project will avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts. These
changes or alterations are related to the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in the
Summary of Mitigation Measures of this document.
Page 2 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
2. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker, having reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for General Plan
Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482 and the public record, finds that there are specific economic,
social, or other considerations which make the mitigation measures for Air Quality contained in the
Draft and Final EIRs infeasibla.
3. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker, finds that significant
and unmitigable impacts on Air Quafily may occur with future development of General Plan
Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482. This finding requires that the Lead Agency issue a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15093 and 15126(b) of the State CEQA
Guidelines if the Lead Agency wishes to proceed with approval of the project.
1.4 FINDINGS WiTH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City of Bakersfield, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, makes
the following findings with regard to the environmental review process undertaken to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the project:
1. Although having determined that an EiR would be prepared to address the project,
in accord with Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Bakersfield
as Lead Agency undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The completed Initial Study
determined that a number of environmental issue areas may be implemented by the construction
and operation of General Plan Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482. Furthermore, the Lead
Agency determined that an EIR would be prepared to address the project's potential impacts on
those environmental issue areas identified in the Initial Study requiring further analysis.
2. 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
public agencies, special districts, and members of the public requesting such notice for a 30-day
period commencing on August 16, 1999. The aforementioned Initial Study was circulated with the
NOP. Based on the Initial Study, no impacts upon BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Wetlands, Tree
Preservation), CULTURAL RESOURCES (Paleontological, Human Remains), EARTH (Soils,
Geologic Hazards, Erosion/Sedimentation, Topography, Mineral Resources), WATER
(Quality/Quantity-Surface Water, Flooding/Drainage), AIR (Climate/Air Movement, Odors),
TRANSPORTATION (Parking), PUBLIC SERVICE (Solid Waste Disposal, Facility Maintenance),
UTILITIES (Storm Drainage, Natural Gas, Electricity, Communication), NATURAL RESOURCES,
and ENERGY USAGE were anticipated upon project implementation, and as a result, these issues
were not addressed in the Draft EIR.
Page 3 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
3. During the circulation period for the Notice of Preparation, the City of Bakemfield as
Lead Agency, advertised and conducted a public scoping meeting for the EIR scheduled for
September 2, 1999 then contiinued to October 7, 1999 and ultimately held on November 4, 1999.
4. A Draft EiR was prepared which analyzed project-related impacts related to the
following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics/Light and Glare; Air Quality; Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Human Health/Risk of Upset; Land Use Compatibility;
Noise; Traffic and Circulation; and Services and Utilities. Project alternatives, growth-inducing
impacts, and cumulative effects were also analyzed in the Draft EIR.
5. During the Draft EIR's public review period which began on April 5, 2000 and
concluded on May 19, 2000, the Bakersfield Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing
at the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 4, 2000 regarding the Draft EIR. The public was afforded
the opportunity to orally comrnent on the Draft EIR at the public hearing, and the testimony was
considered by the decision-makers. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency
proceeded to evaluate and prepara responses to all written comments received from both citizens
and the public agency during the public review period.
6. The aforementioned comments and responses and other information consistent with
the requirements of Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, comprise the Final
EtR. Following completion of the Response to Comments document, the Lead Agency's responses
to the comments received from the pubtic agencies were transmitted to those public agencies for
consideration at least 10 days prior to the Final EIR's certification.
1.5 FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City of Bakersfield, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, finds that
changes or alterations must be incorporated into the project in the form of mitigation measures in
order to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the
Draft and Final EIR. Issues analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR included Aesthetics/Light and Glare;
Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Human Health/Risk of
Upset; Land Use Compatibility; Noise; Traffic and Circulation; and Services and Utilities. The Land
Use and Relevant Planning sE;ction concludes that there are no significant impacts with Relevant
Planning Policies and compatibility. Issues pertaining to Air Quality have been addressed in Section
5.2, Air Quality, of the Final EIR and findings have been presented in this Statement of Facts and
Findings. It is also noted that the Final I-'_IR has concluded less than significant impacts/mitigation
for Aesthetics/Light and Glare (views, cumulative), Air Quality (short-term project construction for
ROG & CO; long-term operational for CO and PM10), Biological Resources (sensitive natural
community; movement of a native resident or migratory wildlife species; cumulative), Geology and
Soils (expansive soils); Human Health/Risk of Upset (EMFs, air traffic hazards, valley fever), Land
Use (conversion of undeveloped lands, conversion of agricultural land, compatibility with the Land
Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, cumulative), Services and Utilities (fire
protection, police protection, school facilities, library facilities, roadway maintenance, electrical
Page 4 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
service, natural gas service, telephone and cumulative). This section documents the Lead Agency's
findings with respect to the environmental analysis, 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.
AESTHETICS/UGHT AND GLARE
Potential Impact
5.1 - 1 Construction activities on the proposed project sites may temporarily alter the visual
appearance of the sites. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are
considered to be short-term; would cease upon completion of construction activities
and would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of required
mitigation measures.
Findin~
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Project construction activities would disrupt views across the sites from surrounding areas. Graded
surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic would be visible. Soil would
be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout
the sites. These impacts would be short-term and cease upon project completion. With the
implementation of required mitigation regarding location of staging areas and screening, short-term
impacts would be reduced to less than significant level. In addition, construction activities would
be required to be consistent with the permitted hours of construction as set forth by the City of
Bakersfield.
Mitigation Measures
The significant effect has be{;n eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR.
5.1-1 a Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from existing
residential uses and appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), shall be
used to buffer views of construction equipment and rnaterial, when feasible. Staging location shall
be indicated on project Final Development Plans and Grading Plans.
Page 5 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
5.1-1b Hours for construction shall be consistent with the City of Bakersfield
Construction Noise Standards.
Potential Impact
5.1-3 Development of the proposed project may introduce additional light and glare
on-site beyond existing conditions. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Compliance with applicable City codes would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels,
Findinq
(a) Clhanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projectwhich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed project may create light/glare impacts to off-site uses and introduce new sources of
lighting into the project area. These sources include lighting for street lights, entryway lights and
interior building lighting. On-site light sources may also create spillover light impacts on surrounding
land uses.
Light sources from on-site residential and commercial sites may have a significant impact on
adjacent residential areas.
Mitiqation Measures
Compliance with applicable City Codes and the use of directional lighting techniques would reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels. Title 17.58.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code
requires that the lighting of parking lots (GC Site) be designed and arranged in such a manner such
that light is reflected away from adjacent residential properties and streets. The types/location of
lighting fixtures/poles would be reviewed by the City during the site plan review process.
AIR QUALITY
Potential Impact
5.2-1 Significant short-term ai~ quality impacts may occur during site preparation and
project construction. Significance: Significant before and after mitigation for NOX
emissions from construction equipment exhaust. Significant before mitigation for
PMfO fugitive dust. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce PMIO
emissions to a less than significant level; impacts would be less than significant for
other pollutants.
Page 6 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Findinfi
(c) Specific econemic, social, or other ,consideration make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project ailternatives identified in the final environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Findines
Short-term air quality impacts would occur during grading and construction activities associated with
implementation of the proposed project. These temporary impacts would include particulate
(fugitive dust) emissions on-site, exhaust emissions and potential odors from construction
equipment; off-site air pollutant emissions at the power plant serving the site, exhaust emissions
from the motor vehicles of the construction crew.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM 10) emissions that may have a substantial,
temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and
working in the project vicinity.
Fugitive dust from grading and construclUon is expected to be short-term and would cease following
project completion. PM10fugitive dust was calculated as part ofthe site grading emissions. Control
measures required and enfon;ed by the APCD under Regulation VIII would help to control these
short-term emissions to a less than significant level.
Compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Regulation VIII, the local zoning code, and
additional mitigation measures recommended in this Section would reduce PM10 fugitive dust
emissions to a less than significant than significant level.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
(Significant after mitigation for NOX emissions)
Exhaust emissions from construction include emissions associated with the transport of machinery
and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used,
and emissions from trucks transporting excavated materials from the sites and fill soils to the site.
Emitted pollutants would include CO, ROG, NOX, SO X, and PM10. Emissions associated with
construction equipment within the project area are anticipated to exceed the San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD NOX threshold of 10 tons per year. Although mitigation measures are recommended
to reduce the significance of short-term construction emissions (including NOX emissions), NOX
emissions would remain significant following mitigatiion.
Page 7 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
would reduce impacts, however, impacls would remain significant,
5.2-1 a Prior to the approval of a grading plan for any residential tract, multiple family
project, and commercial project, the project applicant shall submit a letter to the City of Bakersfield
Planning Department from the SJVUAPCD stating the dust suppression measures that shall be
completed during construction activities in order to comply with SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII. At a
minimum, these measures sha II include: the replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas quickly;
proper maintenance of construction equipment; watering of haul roads two times per day; reduced
speeds on unpaved roads of 15 miles per hour or less; and the use of low volatile organic
compound asphalt.
5.2-1 b Prior to the approval of a grading plan for any residential tract, multiple family
project, and commercial project, the project applicant shall submit a letter to the City of Bakersfield
Planning Department from the SJUAPCD stating the measures that shall be completed during
asphalt paving in order to comply with SJVUAPCD Rule 4641.
5.2-1 c The construction !grading plans shall include a statement that all construction
equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specifications.
5.2-1d The construction grading plans shall include a statement that work crews
shall shut off construction equipment widen not in use.
Potential Impact
5.2-2 The project may result in an overall increase in the local and regional po~utant load
due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural
gas consumption. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact for ROG and NOX
emissions; less than significant for emissions of other pollutants.
Findinq
(c) Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from
project-related traffic and stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas
consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the project site. Emissions
associated with each of these sources are discussed and calculated below.
Page 8 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mobile Soume Emissions: Regional Impacts
(Significant for ROG and NO)(emissions)
Mobile sources referto emissions from motorvehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.
Emissions generated by the preject at buildout would result in criteria pollutants exceeding the San
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's thresholds for ROG and NOX.
Area Soume Emissions
The proposed project would generate e~ectrical demand and heating demands resulting in natural
gas combustion. Electrical demand would result in electrical generation emissions from local power
plants. Stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas consumed and
indirectly from the power plant previding electricity to the project site at buildout would result in
criteria pollutants exceeding the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's thresholds for ROG and NOX.
Total Project Operational Emissions
The mobile source and area emissions associated with the proposed project would generate
pollutant emissions in excess of SJVUAPCD thresholds. Thus, implementation of the proposed
project would create a significant and unavoidable individual project impact from ROG and NOX
emissions. in addition, as the Basin is in non-attainment for 03 and PM 10 air quality standards, and
as the proposed project would exceed established ROG/NOX and PM10 thresholds, the project
would create a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to regional levels of these pollutants
(refer to cumulative discussion below).
Localized CO Emissions
The project is not anticipated to create a significant localized emission of CO or create significant
localized impacts to nearby ssnsitive receptors in this regard.
Mitiqation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
would reduce impacts, however, impacts would remain significant.
5.2-2
The project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans:
Solar or low-emission water heater shall be used;
Central water heating systems shall be used;
Double-.paned glass shall be used in all windows; and
Energy efficient low-sodium lighting in parking areas shall be used.
Page 9 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Potential impact
5.2-3 Ti~e proposed ,project weuld not be consistent with the San Joaquin Valley Unified
APCD'S Air Quality Attainment Plan. Significance: Significant and unavoidable impact;
mitigation measures are not feasible.
Finding
(c) Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project allternatives identified in the final environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is dssignated as non-attainment for both 03 and PM10 (both
State and Federal Standards).. Preject-Glenerated emissions of ROG and NOX (which react to form
03) and PM10 would exceed 'the Distric:t's threshold levels. The Traffic Impact Study prepared for
the project recommends mitigation measures, such as street improvements or traffic signals, for
intersections and street segments which fall below an acceptable LOS due to the impact of future
traffic. The study allocated a proportionate share of the mitigation measures to the project. The
proposed mitigation measures are traffic flow improvements which are recognized TCM's in
compliance with the AQAP.
Although TCMs would be implemented, the project proposes a General Plan amendment to allow
residential uses as opposed te industrial uses (the current General Plan land use designation). As
such, the residential population generated by the project was not originally included in the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. These project-related population increases were also
not anticipated in the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's AQAP. Since pollutant emissions from
this additional population were not anticipated in either the General Plan orAQAP, the project would
be inconsistent with both of these documents. This inconsistency would be a significant project
impact.
No mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR since none were determined to be feasible.
Potential Impact
5.2-4 Impacts to regional air quality resulting from development of cumulative projects may
significantly impact existing air quality levels, Significance: Impacts would be significant
and unavoidable for ROG, NOX and PM10 emissions.
Findin~
(c) Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report.
Page 10 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The annual short-term and long-term emissions associated with the cumulative projects would be
dependent on the phasing of ~;ach project. Adherence to SJVUAPCD rules and regulations would
help to alleviate these impacts. However', the build out, sale and occupancy of the dwelling units and
other uses would be controlled by market demand. Emission reduction technology, strategies and
plans are constantly being dsveloped.
Since the Basin is non-attainment for 03 and PM10 air quality standards (both State and FederaD
standards), additional emissions of ROG and NOX (precursors to 03) and PM10 would be
considered significant and adverse cumulative impacts.
Mitiqation Measures
The following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
would reduce impacts, however, impacts would remain significant.
5.2-4 Mitigation measures beyond those contained in applicable plans and policies
would be implemented on a project-by-project basis. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impact
5.3-2 Project implementation may adversely affect special status vegetation types, plants,
and wildlife species. Si~lnificance: Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation in the form
of focused surveys .and payment of fees would reduce impacts to special status
species to a less than significant level
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findines
Special Status Vegetation Types and Plants
No special status vegetation types, plants, are expected to occur on the project sites. Therefore,
no significant impacts would be incurred as a result of the proposed project.
Page 11 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Special Status Wildlife
Of the 33 specia~ status wildlife species occurring in the region, eight are listed as Threatened or
Endangered or are proposed for listing. The San Joaquin antelope squirrel and the giant kangaroo
rat are not expected to occur at the project sites and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard has a very low
potential to occur on the project sites. Impacts on these three species would not be considered
significant and no mitigation would be required.
The SwainsoWs hawk and peregrine falcon are only expected to occur as rarities in the region.
Project implementation would result in an incremental loss of non-critical foraging habitat for these
raptors. This is considered an adverse, however, less than significant impact, and no mitigation
would be required.
The encroachment of urban development in the vicinity of the project sites has substantially reduced
the potential forthe mountain plover's occurrence. As a result, project implementation would result
in an incremental loss of non-critical foraging habitat that is considered adverse, however, not
significant for this species. Therefore, no mitigation would be required.
Two Federal and State listed species are expected to occur on the project sites: the Tipton
kangaroo rat and the San Joaquin kil fox. Impacts on these species would be considered
significant. However, these irnpacts would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through
implementation of the specified mitigation measures required in order to comply with the MBHCP.
Due to the low sensitivity of the remaining 25 special status wildlife species (i.e., not listed as
Threatened or Endangered), potential limpacts on these species would be considered adverse,
however, not significant.
Any impacts to the burrowing owl would be considered significant. Implementation of mitigation
would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Project implementation would remove potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for raptor
species. The loss of these habitats would contribute to an ongoing regional and local loss of
foraging habitat for these species. These cumulative impacts are considered to be adverse,
however, not significant, sincE; they would not substantially reduce the amount of foraging habitat
available for these species on a regional or local basis. The American kestrel and the burrowing
owl have the potential to nest on the project sites. Any impacts on an active nest of either a
common or a special status raptor species would be considered significant. Implementation of
mitigation in the form of focus~;d surveys to determine the presence of the burrowing owls or other
raptor species would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Overall, the proposed project has the petential to impact several special status wildlife species and
nesting raptors. Implementation of mitigation measures taken from the MBHCP, including payment
Page 12 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
of pay a one-time mitigation ~ee to the City of Bakersfield and conducting focused surveys would
reduce impacts to special status wildlife species to a less than significant level.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR.
5.3-2a The project applicant shall pay a one-time mitigation fee due and payable to
the City of Bakersfield at the time grading plans are approved or building permits are issued. The
mitigation fee is currently $1,240 per acre (Phil Burns pers. com. 2000) and may be increased to
keep pace with inflation (City of Bakersfield 1994). The mitigation fee shall apply to the project sites
in their entirety.
5.3-2b Prior to construction activities, focused surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any known kit fox dens are located on the
project sites. If an active den is not found, no further mitigation would be necessary. However, if
an active den is present, kit foxes shall be relocated by a qualified biologist using CDFG- and
USFWS-approved methods. If the biologist determines that relocation is not practicable, he/she
shall destroy the den according to CDFG- and USFWS- approved methods to allow the foxes to
relocate on their own Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG.
5.3-2c Thirty days prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct
a survey to determine if the burrowing owl is present on the project sites and the nesting status of
any individuals present. If nesting is not occurring, construction work shall proceed after any owls
have been evacuated from tha project sites using CDFG-approved burrow closure procedures. If
an active nest is present, to protect any active burrow site, the following restriction on construction
shall be required between February 1 and June 30 or until nests are no longer active as determined
by the project biologist: clearing limits !shall be established by the biologist in any direction from
raptor nests/burrows depending on the species and existing conditions. Results of the surveys and
relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFG.
5.3-2d Thirty days prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct
a survey to determine if any raptors am nesting in trees on the project sites. If nesting is not
occurring, construction work shall proceed. If an active nest is present, to protect any active
nest/burrow sites, the following restriction on construction shall be required between February 1 and
June 30 or until nests are no longer active as determined by the project biologist: clearing limits
shall be established by the biologist in any direction from raptor nests/burrows depending on the
species and existing conditions. Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG.
Page 13 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
Potential Impact
5.3-4 Project implementation may conflict with the provisions of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Payment of MBHCP mitigation fees would ensure project compliance, reducing
impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed project sites are covered under the MBHCP. Project implementation has the
potential to impact Federal and State listed species covered in the MBHCP (i.e., the Tipton
kangaroo rat and the San Joaquin kit fox), and which are expected to occur on the project sites.
Potentially suitable habitat is available for these species on the project sites and they are known to
occur in the project vicinity. As a result, impacts on these species would be considered significant
and would conflict with the provisions of the MBHCP. However, these impacts would be mitigated
to a level of less than significant through implementation of the specified mitigation measures
required in order to comply with the MBHCP.
Mitic~ation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.3-4
Refer to Mitigation Measures 5.3-2a and 5.3-2b.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impact
5.4-1 Implementation of the proposed project may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeolo~,ical and/or historical resources. Significance: Potentially
Significant Impact. hnplementation of the specified mitigation would reduce impacts
to less than significant levels..
Page 14 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Finding
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Neither site CA-KER.-2873 nor site CA~KER-2874 are located within the limits of the proposed
development areas. However, site CA-KER-2873 is located in proximity to the proposed LMR site,
thus project implementation may impact this prehistoric site. Impacts to archaeological/historicag
resources would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the specified
mitigation.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design fealures and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.4-1a Prior to construction, the project applicant shall implement the following
measures as outlined in the FebruaFy, '1991 Archaeological Assessment for the project area:
Recorded sites CA-KER~2873 and CA-KER-2874 shall be mapped and
surface collected,
Two backhoe trenches (minimum depth: 1.5m. [5 ft.]) and two test units (1
x 2 m.)shall be placed at each recorded site to determine the presence and
content ofany intact subsufface deposit. Further recommendations, ifany,
will depend on the results of these tests,
Efforts shall be made to locate, borrow, and record artifacts previously
removed from ths project area.
5.4-1b In the event that a material of potential cultural significance is uncovered
during grading activities on the project sites, all grading shall cease and the project applicant shall
retain a professional archaeologist to evaluate the quality and significance of the material. Grading
shall not continue until resourcas have bsen completely removed by the arehaeologist and recorded
as appropriate, Compliance 'with this measure is subject to periodic field inspection the project
applicant.
Page 15 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
Potential Impact
5.4-2 Cumuiative development may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of prehistoric resources. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed project sites may have prehistoric resources that may be unearthed as a result of
construction activities.
Mitiqation Measures
Potential impacts would be sita specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted
on a project-by-preject basis. 'This would be especially true of those developments located in areas
considered to have a high sensitivity for cultural resources. Each incremental development is
required to comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations concerning preservation,
salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential
cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would not be considered significant. No mitigation
measures were identified in the Final EIIR.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potential Impact
5.5-1 Project implementation may expose people or structures to adverse effects
associated with seismic activity. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Analysis
has concluded that compliance with City and Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards
would reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level.
Findin~
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Page 16 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
Based on the available data, development of the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects with respect to rupture of a known earthquake
fault,
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Although there are no active faults located along the project area, the entire Bakersfield area is
considered to be seismically active with nine active faults located in proximity to the project area.
The general project area may experience severe ground shaking and surface readjustment in the
event of maximum magnitude earthquakes. With implementation of the specified mitigation
measures, the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated
with strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
There are no known perched .or other shallow water tables underlying the project area that would
result in liquefaction problems in the event of groundshaking during an earthquake.
With implementation of the !specified mitigation measures, the potential to expose people or
structures to substantial adverse effects associated with subsidence would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
A break and failure of Lake Isabella Dam could result in flooding affecting approximately 26 square
miles of the City, including the; project area. However, damages associated with dam failure are
considered unlikely to occur.
There are no large bodies of water in the area that could endanger the proposed development from
inundation. Neither is the project area located in any high potential or historical flood hazard zone.
Landslides
There are no steep natural slopes near the area which could expose the proposed development to
landslides.
Overall, the intensity of future seismic activity at the proposed project is expected to be no greater
than for other sites in the immediate vicinity. To ensure public safety, it is required that the
proposed structures be designed in accordance with the minimum Earthquake Regulations of the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chapter 23, as it provides for earthquake-resistant design, and
Chapter 33, as it provides for excavation and grading. Development of the project would be subject
Page 17 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
to standards specified in the UBC as well as in the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code.
Compliance with these standards would reduce impacts associated with seismicity to a less than
significant level.
Miticlation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.5-1a The proposed project structures and improvements shall be designed in
accordance with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the City of
Bakersfield Municipal Code.
5.5-1b Engineering design for all structures shall consider the prebabiiity that the
project area wilt be subject~;d to streng ground motion during the lifetime of the proposed
developments. Construction plans shah be subject lo the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and
shall call for standards which address horizontal bedrock accelerations of at least 0.24 gravity.
Potential Impact
5.5~2 Implementation of the proposed project may result in substantial soil erosion.
Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Analysis has concluded that
implementation of the specified mitigation and compliance with City and Uniform
Building Code (UBC) standards would reduce impacts in regards to soil erosion to
a less than significant level.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alto;rations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant ,affects on the environments.
Facts in SLIDDOlt Of Findinqs
Clearing and removal of the existing vegetation in preparation for project development would
expose the underlying soils to the potential for increased erosion during periods of winds and heavy
rainfall. Grading and excavation activities would further disrupt these existing soils. The
characteristics of these soil types include moderate to rapid permeability and very slow to slow
runoff. These soils am considered generally cohesionless within the top severel feet.
An Erosion Control Plan would be required, prior to any grading activity, to ensure that erosion
controls are implemented. Implementation of the specified mitigation and compliance with City and
Page 18 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards would reduce impacts in regards to topography and soi~
erosion to a less than significant level.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.5-2a Pursuant to City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Sections 16.44.010 and
16.44.030, prior to site grading or excavation, the project applicant shall submit to the Engineering
Division for review and approval, an Erosion Control Plan.
5.5~2b In compliance with the Kern County California Soil Survey, a community
sewerage system shall be designed and implemented in association with the proposed row-medium
density residential housing (LMR Site), to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Engineering
Department.
Potential Impact
5.5-4 Ti)e proposed project, combined with future development, may result in increased
geology and soft impacts within the area. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Mitigation incorporated on a project-by-project basis would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels in areas deemed suitable for development.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Cumulative effects related to geology and soils resulting from implementation of the proposed
project and development in the project vicinity and surrounding areas may expose more persons
and property to potential hazards. Further, any potential impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant levels on a project-by-project basis. The project would not exceed impacts in this regard
beyond those anticipated within the General Plan. No mitigation measures have been identified in
the Final EIR.
Miticlation Measures
The General Plan EIR states that all new development would be subject to the Uniform Building
Code in an effort to preserve the structural integrity of new buildings in the event of an earthquake.
Page 19 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of !Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
The General Plan EIR does not identify significant and unavoidable impacts after compliance with
this measure.
HUMAN HEALTH/RISK OF UPSET
Potential Impact
5.6-1 Due to the historic use of the project area for agricultural purposes, there is a
potential for pesticide residues (including DDT) to be present in the shallow soft.
Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Health hazards may occur which can be
reduced to a less than significant level wi~h implementation of mitigation measures.
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alto;rations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projectwhich
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
There is a potential for pesticicle residues to be present in the shallow soil. Potential health impacts
associated with individuals being exposed to pesticide residues, if at all, may occur during grading
and construction phases of the project. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure
would reduce potential impacts in this regard to a less than significant level.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or 'the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.6-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall perform
soil tests to determine concentrations of pesticide and fungicide residues which may be present
within the project site. Should contaminant levels be in excess of acceptable Federal, State and/or
County levels, the proiect applicant shall identify and implement remedial action, subject to approval
by the City of Bakersfield and responsibh.= regulatory agencies to reduce contaminants to acceptable
levels.
Potential Impact
5.6-2 Pesticide application procedures associated with adjacent agricultural uses may
potentially create human health effects for future occupants of the development.
Page 20 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Significance" Potentially Significant Impact. Compliance with local and State
requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findincls
Agricultural uses immediately adjacent to development areas during project buildout could create
human health effects particularly during pesticide application operations.
Mitiqation Measures
The potential impact of the continued use of agricull:ural chemicals within the development areas
would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of 1 ) applicable Federal, State
and local regulations and guidelines; and 2) buffers or barriers between agricultural and urban uses
to provide a separation during pesticide application operations (residential structures are required
to be setback a minimum of 50 feet from all agricultural zones).
Potential Impact
5.6-3 Development .adjacent ~o oil fields and oft wells can result in potential health and
safety risks due to "gas migration," "attractive nuisances," "soft and groundwater
contamination"and "bh2wouts" when drilling new wells, reworking old wells or abandonment
of old wells. Several abandoned and active wells are located within the project's boundary,
therefore, health and safety risks are present. Significance: Potentially Significant
Impact. Development adjacent to oft fields and oft wells shaft be required to comply
with aft Federal, State and local standards. In addition, compliance with mitigation
measures identified by the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),
as contained within Chapter 15.66 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, would reduce
potential' impacts to ,less than significant levels.
Findin~
(a) Changes or altsrations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Page 2i of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPAJZC P99-0482
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Gas Migration
Development within an oil field could result in construction of structures over abandoned wells.
Methane and hydrogen sulfide gas could migrate upward and could accumulate beneath developed
areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the
atmosphere. Migration of gases through cracks in concrete foundations into the interior of
structures could create the potential for an explosion or fire. Proper well abandonment procedures
on existing wells or reabandonment of previously abandoned wells prior to development of the
proposed project would reduce potential gas migration impacts to less than significant levels.
Soil Contamination
Oil contaminated soil is known to occur in oil fields particularly adjacent to oil wells. Unrefined oi~
contains a variety of hazardous constituents. However, not all oil-contaminated soil is considered
hazardous under State and Federal standards. Due to the historic oil drilling activities on-site there
is the potential for oil contaminated soil to exist within the project area. Mitigation requiring removal
of such soil would reduce potential impacts to less tihan significant levels.
Blowouts
Blowout prevention devices are generally used by the operators whenever the wells are being
drilled or reworked. In addition, adequate setbacks would provide adequate separation between
all new and existing wells and all proposed structures.
Well Abandonment
During construction and development operations, the currently abandoned wells on the project site
would need to be exposed prior to construction. The Division must be notified to investigate the
condition of the well heads and check for leakage. I1F any reabandonment is required, the Division
would furnish necessary specification to the property owner.
On-Site Oil Production Facilities
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan contains several implementation programs
designed to ensure the continued viability of the general plan area's mineral and petroleum
industries and to eliminate existing land use conflicts due to resource extraction as well as prevent
their future occurrence. These implementation programs are designed to mitigate any adverse
impacts related to continued exploitation of petroleum and mineral resources in the general plan
area.
Page 22 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Strict compliance with CEQA, the City of Bakersfield's Oil and Gas Code, and the State Division of
Oil and Gas Regulation would provide for the controlled establishment of mineral production
activities among established and proposed urban uses.
Adherence to Federal, State, and City requirements relative to oil filed production and oil well
operations would reduce potential impact to existin~g oil facilities and mineral rights to less than
significant levels.
Miticlation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.6-3a Pursuant to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division),
active wells which would reraain upon project comlpletion and associated equipment within the
project area shall be enclosed by an eight-foot block wall. Appropriate gates shall be installed and
climbable landscaping around the perimeter of the facility shall be avoided. The inside grade of the
facility shall be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the enclosure.
Improvements are the responsibility of the project alsplicant/developer.
5.6-3b Sufficient access to the existing and abandoned wells shall be maintained
in order for the Division of () il, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) to investigate the
conditions of the wellheads and check for leakage. If any reabandonments are required, the
Division shall furnish necessary specifications to the property owner.
5.6-3c If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered, or damaged during
excavation or grading activities, remedial plugging operations pursuant to Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources requirements would be required.
5.6-3d Prior to issuance of building permits, any discovered oil contaminated soil
shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the Local Unified Program Agency (the Office of
Environmental Services-Bakersfield City Fire Deparlment) in conjunction with the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board (F>,WQCB) and/or Calife, rnia Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC).
5.6-3e Prior to issuance! of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide
sufficient evidence that the existing groundwater wall has been properly closed pursuant to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCG) requirements.
Page 23 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Potential Impact
5.6-4 Project development could expose future residents to potential health impacts
associated with historical operations which have occurred within the North of the River
Sanitary District (NORSD) property. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. A
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Investigation prepared for the NORSD property
indicated that historical activities have not significantly impacted the property.
Mitigation measure,,; have bgen included to further reduce the potential for an
environmental condition to occur during demolition activities.
Finding
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the envirenments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Soil samples analyzed from the former sewage dumping area for the Total Threshold Limit
Concentrations (TTLC) of CAM-17 metals are considered to contain normal background
concentrations forthe area. The reported metals concentrations in all of the samples analyzed were
either low or below laboratory analytical detection limits and were well below hazardous
concentration limits set fourth in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
Analyses of soil samples collscted adjacent to the c, il production facilities located on the NORSD
property reportedly contain low level of hydraulic/motor oil range hydrocarbons. The reported
concentrations of the hydrocarbon contamination encountered are consistent with normal oilfield
operations and do not pose a significant environmental concern with respect to the subject property.
Sewage Treatment Plant
Two (500 gallons each) abow.= ground gasoline and diesel storage tanks and approximately 220
gallons of motor oil stored in drums were identified at the North of the River Sewage Treatment
Plant site. Soils staining was reported present beneath the above ground storage tanks, however,
the staining appeared to be surficial in nature and probably does not indicate an environmental
condition. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures contained in this section would
further serve to reduce potential impacts associated with the above ground storage tanks and soil
staining to a less than significant level.
It is also noted that due to the age of the on-site structures associated with the sewage treatment
plant, the potential for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs) to be
encountered during demolition activities is considered likely. Adherence to state and local
regulations regarding the handling and disposal of such materials would reduce potential impacts
to less than significant levels.
Page 24 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.6-4a Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant shall remove all
above ground storage tanks and oil storage drums from the sewage treatment plant facility. Areas
beneath the storage drums and storage; tanks shall be re-inspected to verify if additional staining
has occurred. All reported stained soils as well as newly identified staining sha~l be tested,
removed, and properly disposed of off-site in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
5.6-4b Prior to demolition work, the applicant shall sample structures within the
sewage treatment area (i.e., ,~=quipment shed, truck shed, maintenance shop, engine room, and
office building) to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Any
demolition of the existing buildlings shall comply with State law, which requires a contractor, where
there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of ACMs, to be certified and that
certain procedures regarding the removal of asbestos be followed.
5.6-4c If during demolition of the structure, paint is separated from the building
material (e.g. chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the
building materiaI to determine its proper management. Should the LBF' materials require disposal,
the applicant shall contact the landfill operator in advance to determine any specific requirements
they may have regarding the disposal of LBP materials.
Potential Impact
5.6-5 Implementation of the proposed project could expose future occupants to potential
health and safety impacts associated with an accidental release of hazardous material(s)
or an explosion from the adjacent heavy industrial area situated to the southeast.
Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are reduced to a less than
significant level by establishing appropriate separation distances pursuant to criteria
set forth by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern Fire Departments.
Finding
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findines
In response to potential health and safety impacts to future residences associated with the adjacent
heavy industrial uses located southeast of the project site, set-back distances were established
Page 25 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
through a scientific basis in accordance with accepted risk management practices. The calculated
set-back distances were determined to not incDude any potential active or passive mitigation
measures.
The appropriate buffer distances between heavy industrial areas and residential areas were
established. The greatest buffer distance calculated is the minimum setback distance which could
be approved without consideration of olher potential safety programs.
Based on information provided by the heavy industrial uses, it was determined that two facilities
(Coast Energy and Equilon Enterprises) would have the most significant impact on the proposed
project in the event of an acci.dental release or explosion. All other industries were determined to
have potential impacts which would fall within the set-back distances associated with the two
facilities. Incorporation of appropriate setback distances would reduce potentially significant
impacts associated with the two facilities to less than significant levels.
Additionally, implementation ef the proposed project would result in the inclusion of an industrially
zoned area which, under developed conditions, would serve as a physical buffer between the
proposed residential developments and the existing heavy industrial area. This industrial area
extends out to the boundaries established as the necessary set-back distances which were
calculated. Therefore, the proposed residential areas would not be located within the areas
identified above as having potentially significant health or safety concerns with implementation of
recommended setbacks. Pote;ntial impacts in this regard are considered to be less than significant.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.6-5a Prior to approvaj of final development plans, the City shall confirm that
appropriate setback distances; for future residential units from the existing heavy industrial area to
the southeast are applied pursuant to the criteria established by the City of Bakersfield and County
of Kern Fire Departments. The; greatest buffer distance calculated in accordance with these criteria
shall be the minimum set back distance approved without consideration of other potential safety
programs. The requirements include the following:
· 330 feet; or
The endpoint distance shall be based upon the chemical specific,
Emergency Response Planning Guide 2 (ERPG 2) concentration, using the
alternate release; scenario (i.e., the most credible accidental release
scenario) for an airborne Acutely Hazardous Material (AHM) toxic gas
release from any facilities in the adjacent zone; or
Page 26 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
The endpoint distance of a one pound per square inch (1 psi) over pressure,
based on the alternate release scenario (i.e., the most credible release) of
a flamrr~able substance vapor cloud explosion from any facilities with more
than 10,000 pounds (2,500 gallons) of a flammable gas in a process in the
adjacent zone; or
The end point distance shall be based on the radiant heat exposure that
potentially could cause second degree burns, to a person for the duration of
the fireball resulting from a BLEVE from any facility with more than 10,000
pounds (2,500 gallons) of a fiammable gas stored in multiple containers; or
The endpoint distance of the zone of impact of a one in ten million lifetime
cancer risk from a facility subject to Section 44300 et seq. of the California
Health and Safety Code. This criteria would only apply to construction
adjacent to existing facilities that have reported continuous releases subject
to the (Air Toxics Hot Spots Act of 1987).
5.6-5b Priorto project approvals forfuture industrial uses located between the future
residential development and the existing heavy industries, the City shall utilize the distance criteria
developed by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern fire departments and provide sufficient
setbacks for the industrial uses. Refer to criteria outfined above.
Potential Impact
5.6-8 Development of residential uses withbin the vicinity of the BN&SF rail line to the
southeast of the project site could potentially result in an increase hazard associated with
train operations. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Development adjacent
to rail lines shall be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local standards to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Findin~
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the siignificant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
There are a number of safety issues associated with daily rail operations including the potential for
accidents between vehicles and trains at grade crossings, accidents involving pedestrians and
trains, and exposure to injury or hazardous materials as a result of train accidents. The risk of upset
involving hazardous materials is especially important as the BN & SF rail line within the vicinity of
the proposed project is utilized to transport oil products associated with nearby production facilities.
Page 27 of 48
EXHIBIT "A'
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
This rail line is buffered by industrial zoned land from the nearest proposed residential units, thereby
reducing the impact of a train derailmenl and/or release of hazardous materials. This area between
the rail line and proposed residential areas is currentUy under cultivation, however, future structures
constructed according to land uses designations would ~revide additional physical "buffering" from
the rail line.
In addition, the hazard analysis conducted for the project area addressed potential human health
effects associated with accidsntal releases from the adjacent heavy industrial uses.
Miticlation Measures
The quantity of materials which would be transported along the rail line would be significantly lower
than the quantities utilized in the hazard analysis. Therefore, the setback distances provided within
the hazard analysis would serve to reduce impacts associated with an accidental train derailment
to less than significant levels. Additionally, the daily trips along this portion of the rail line are not
anticipated to increase in the future, Due to the relatively limited use of this rail line in conjunction
with adherence with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations related to carrier operation
procedures, potential impacts associated with rail operations are considered to be less than
significant.
Potential Impact
5.6-10 Future development within the vicinity of the project area is subject to Federal, State
and local compliancE! regulations regarding the treatment, storage and clean-up of
hazardous materials. Significance: Compliance with Federal, State and local
requirements on a project-by-project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a
less than significant level
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed project, combined with on-going and future development of related projects in the
study area, would be required to be in compliance with Federal, State and local regulations
regarding on-site hazardous condition and the use of hazardous materials. No mitigation measures
beyond those identified on a project-by-project basis are required.
Page 28 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
LAND USE
Potential Impact
5.7-3 Project implementation may result in the loss of mineral resoumes. Significance:
Less Than Significant Impact..
Findinq
(a) Changes or altarations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed project sites are located in an area that may have hazardous resources.
Mitiqation Measure
The potential exists that minaral resources would be lost due to development of the proposed
residential and commercial uses in areas of current and potential resource extraction.
In compliance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), and applicable design
standards and guidelines contained in the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other development
standards or guidelines of the City, the project would be designed in consideration of the existing
mineral resources. Therefore, significant impacts with respect to the loss of mineral resources are
not anticipated.
Potential Impact
5.7-4 Development of the proposed project may result in potential land use incompatibility
between the proposed uses and the existing uses including the petroleum operations, power
lines, industrial uses, and airport Significance: Potentially Significant lmpact. Impacts
addressed in Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, Section 5.8, Noise, Section 5.9, Traffic and
Circulation, and Section 5.6, Human Health/Risk of Upset. No additional land use
impact and mitigation measures have been identified.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Page 29 of 48
EXHIBIT "A'
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Facts in SUDDOrt of Findinqs
Petroleum Operations. The proposed development may experience internal conflicts due to the
incompatibility between the proposed uses and the petroleum operations remaining on-site.
Development on the proposed project sites would encroach upon the petroleum drilling which is
currently taking place since these existing uses are proposed to remain alongside the proposed
uses.
Power Lines. A Southern California Edison (SCE) high voltage transmission line easement extends
in an east west direction across the northern portion of the proposed low-medium density residentia~
site (LMR Site). Based on ths available data, the proposed low:medium density residential uses
would not be incompatible with the existing transmission line.
Industrial Uses. Implementation of the preposed project would expose future residents to potential
health and safety impacts associated with an accidental release of hazardous material(s) or an
explosion from the adjacent heavy industriaB area situated to the southeast of the project area.
However, impacts in this regard would be reduced to a less than significant level by establishing
appropriate separation distances pursuant to criteria set forth by the City of Bakersfield and County
of Kern Fire Departments.
Traffic & Noise. The Traffic Irnpact Study concluded that the study area would continue to operate
at an acceptable level of service with the addition of project-generated trips for all analysis scenarios
examined. The additional vehiculartravel on the surrounding roadway network would result in noise
level increases along these roadways. However, implementation of required mitigation measures
would reduce on-site noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Airport. The proposed project is located appreximately two miles southwest of the Meadows Field
- Kern County Airport and is s:ituated in .Zone C of the Kern County Airport Compatibility Land Use
Plan (CLUP). The project is considered compatible with the Zone C compatibility designation.
Further, the noise contours associated with flight activity at the Meadows Field - Kern County Airport
indicate that the proposed residential uses would not be exposed to excessive noise levels.
Mitiqation Measures
Overall, the provision of adequate separation and buffers (i.e., perimeter walls) between the uses
would reduce potential compatibility impacts to less than significant levels. Further, compliance with
the City of Bakersfie3d's Oil and Gas Code, and the State Division of Oil and Gas Regulations, would
provide for the controlled establishment of mineral production activities among the proposed urban
Uses.
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or mitigation measures as identified in the Final
EIR and incorporated into the project.
Page 30 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Potential Impact
5.7-6 The proposed project requires an amendment to the Circulation Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Significance: Potentially Significant
Impact, The General Plan Circulation Element Amendments which are pre-requisite
to project development would ensure consistency of the proposed uses with the
General Plan circulation designations.
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The project proposes amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan including
changes which would affect Flageman Road.
Mitiqation Measures
The General Plan Circulation EElement Amendments which are pre-requisite to project development
would ensure consistency of the proposed uses with the General Plan circulation designations.
NOISE
Potential Impact
5.8-1 Grading and construction on the proposed project site would result in temporary
noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Significance: Potentially Significant
Impact. Adherence to City code requirements would reduce temporary noise impacts
to a less than significant level
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the project area may experience excessive noise levels
resulting from construction activities. These impacts would be short-term, ceasing upon completion
of each phase.
Page 31 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
Adherence to City code requirements would reduce temporary noise impacts to a less than
significant level.
Potential Impact
5.8-2 Project implementation would generate additional vehiculartravel on the surrounding
roadway network, thereby resulting in noise level increases along these roadways.
Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. For on-site and locations, impacts would
be potentially significant. However, implementation of required mitigation measures
would reduce on-site noise impacts to less than significant levels. Off-site vehicular
noise impacts would be less than significant.
Finding
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findines
Project implementation would result in additional Lraffic on adjacent readways, thereby increasing
vehicular generated noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed residential uses. These impacts
would result from project-related vehicle travel, thereby contributing to future noise level increases
above City standards along adjacent readway segments.
On-Site Vehicular Noise Impacts
Future planned roadway alignments including Knudsen Drive, Hageman Road, Mohawk Street, and
Krebs Road would border the preject and represent a new noise source potentially impacting future
on-site residences. Mitigation requiring the construction of sound barriers between the roadway and
the future residences would reduce noise to levels below City standards, and thereby reduce noise
impacts to less than significant levels. Barriers would be sufficient to mitigate potential traffic-related
impacts along future adjacent roadway alignments. Development of the proposed project would
adhere to City of Bakersfield and California State Noise Insulation Standards.
Off-Site Vehicular Noise Impacts
Mitiaation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
Page 32 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
On-Site Vehicular Noise Impects
5.8-2a To reduce significant traffic noise impacts to below 65 dBA CNEL at
proposed low density and low-medium density residential locations situated adjacent to
collector and arterial roadways, the project applicant shall incorporate sound barriers, along
cited roadways (Knudsen Drive, Hageman Road, Mohawk Street, and Krebs Road). Since
lot design and grading plans am not yet available, the exact height and location of barriers
cannot be accurately determined at this time. Therefore, prior to Final Development Plan
approval, the project applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, which provides location and heights of future sound barriers.
Off-Site Vehicular Noise Impects
5.8-2b
No mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact
5.8-3 Long-term commemial operations associated with the proposed project would result
in the generation of an-site noise associated with and loading/unloading activities,
mechanical equipmen;t, parking lots, etc. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
The impact analysis has concluded that impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels with adherence to Municipal Code requirements related to shielding
of such equipment, loading activities and other related limitations.
Findinq
(a) Changes or altsrations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Project implementation would result in the development of general commercial uses adjacent to
future residences developed as part of the project. Noise associated with commercial activities has
the potential to impact these future residences.
The proposed project would be required to reduce on-site noise impacts to below City noise
standards and demonstrate adherence to the Bakersfield Noise Ordinance.
A subsequent noise analysis 'would be prepared demonstrating that site placement of stationary
noise sources would not exceed Code criteria for adjacent residences. Therefore, long-term
stationary noise generated from proposed commercial uses would be less than significant.
Page 33 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project,
5.8-3 Prior to Final Development Plan approval, a subsequent noise analysis shall
be prepared, to the satisfaction of the City Building Director, which demonstrates that site placement
of stationary noise sources associated with future commercial uses would not exceed criteria
established in Chapter 9.22 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, for adjacent residences. To
demonstrate commercial noise source impacts are below the City's standards, the project applicant
may need to include project design features such as setbacks, barriers, building location/orientation,
acoustical design of buildings, etc.
Potential Impact
5.8-4 Existing oil production wells may remain on-site following project development;
thereby, resulting in potential noise impacts to future noise on-site sensitive uses.
Significance:' Potent~ally Significant Impact. Compliance with City Noise standards
would reduce impaclts to a less than significant level.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Oil production equipment is currently located within the project area. Residences built in close
proximity to the oil production equipment, may experience a significant noise impact.
Mitiqation Measures
However, with implementation of required setbacks and noise attenuation techniques in accordance
with City standards, potential noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Potential Impact
5.8-5 Implementation of the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would
increase the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Significance: Less than
significant impact with adherence to Metropolitan Bakersfield 20fO General Plan and
on a project-by-project basis.
Page 34 of 48
EXHIBIT "A'
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Potential noise generated by the project and cumulative projects would be subject to adherence to
the City's Noise Compatibility Guidelines, threshold criteria, and General Plan and Municipal Code
requirements. Adherence to these requirements would serve to reduce noise levels from short-term
and long-term mobile and stationary sources.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Potential Impact
5.9-1 Project implementation may cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the Opening Year traffic load and capacity of the street system and may exceed
an established LOS standard. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level
Findinq
(a) Changes or altcretions have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of FEndinqs
The proposed General Plan land uses would result in a net increase of approximately 6,654 trip-
ends per day with 636 less vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 350 more vehicles per
hour during the PM peak hour as compared to the existing General Plan land uses.
Off-site improvements would be required adjacent to the project site, and in conjunction with project
development, in order to achieve the required leve~s of service at Krebs Road, Mohawk Street,
Landco Road, and Hageman Road.
For Opening Year with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to
operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, with improvements. Therefore,
implementation of the specified mitigation measures would reduce the project's impacts under
Opening Year traffic conditions to a less than significant level.
Page 35 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPAJZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.9-1 a The following improvements shall be implemented off-site in conjunction with
the proposed development:
Krebs Road shall be constructed adjacent to the project site at its ultimate
half-section width as a Collector (2 lanes undivided) in conjunction with
development,
Mohawk Street shall be constructed adjacent to the project site (south of
Hageman Road) at its ultimate half-section width as an Arterial (4 lanes
divided:) in conjunction with development.
Landco Road shall be constructed adjacent to the project site (north of
Hageman Road) at its ultimate cross-section width as a Arterial (4 lanes
divided in conjunction with development.
Hageman Road :shall be constructed adjacent to the project site (west of
Mohawk Street) at its ultimate half-section width as an Arterial (6 lanes
divided:) and as an Arterial (4 lanes divided) east of Mohawk Street in
conjunction with development.
5.9-1 b Traffic signing/striping within the project boundaries shall be implemented in
conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project.
5,9-1c Sight distance at each intersection shall be reviewed with respect to
Caltrans/City of Bakersfield sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading,
landscape and street improvement plans.
5.9-1 d Opening day mitigation measures in sections 5.9-1 a through 5,9-1 c shall be
required to be implemented with the first phase of development.
Potential Impact
5.9-2 Project implerrTentation .may cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the Year 2020 traffic load and capacity of the street system and may exceed an
established LOS standard. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact.
Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Page 36 of' 48
,,:: ,,::
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findincls
Under these conditions, the off-site roadway system would need to be improved to roadway
classifications shown on the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Comprehensive Circulation
Plan, with augmented roadway improvements along segments of Rosedale Highway. The
implementation of off-site improvements shall be determined as future entitlements are granted for
development in and around the project area.
The traffic impact analysis indicates the roadway sizing requirements for Year 2020 based upon the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Comprehensive Circulation. This evaluation of roadway
improvement needs will provide the basis for changes to the general plan in conjunction with the
project. These area wide improvements would ultimately be needed with or without development
of the proposed project based upon Kern COG traffic projections.
Off-site improvements would be needed at study area intersections to accommodate Year 2020 with
project traffic conditions. With these intersection improvements as well as the on-site and off-site
improvements, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "C" or better
during the peak hours for Year 2020 with project traffic conditions. Accordingly, implementation of
the specified mitigation measures would reduce the project's impacts under Year 2020 traffic
conditions to a less than signi'Ficant ~evel.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.9-2a The project shalll participate through payment of fees in the phased
construction of off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals for the Year 2020 follows:
Olive Drive
Knudsen Drive to Roben's Lane
Six lanes divided
Hageman Road
West of Patton Way to Mohawk Street
Six lanes divided
Mohawk Street to SR-204 Freeway
Page 37 ot: 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
· Four lanes divided
Rosedale Highway (SR-58)
West of Patton Way to Mohawk Street
· Six lanes divided
Mohawk Street east to Oak Street
· Eight lanes divided
Fruitvale Avenue
Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway (SR-58)
· Four lanes divided
Mohawk Street
Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway (SR-58)
· Four lanes divided
South of Rosedale Highway (SR-58)
· Six lanes divided
Landco Road
Olive Drive to Hageman Road
· Four lanes divi,ded
Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway (SR-58)
· Four lanes undivided
Gibson Street
Gilmore Avenue to Rosedale H{qhway (SR~58)
· Two lanes divided
Buck Owens Boulevard
SR-204 Freeway to RiO Mirada Drive
· Six lanes divided
5,9-2b The traffic signals required within the study area at buildout shall specifically
include an interconnect of the signals to function in a coordinated system.
5.9-2c The project shall contribute on a pro-rata basis to the construction of ultimate
intemection lane requirements for Year 2020 as follows:
Patton Way (NS)at:
O~ve Drive (EW)
· Traffic signal
Hageman Road (EW)
· Traffic signal
Page 38 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of I;indings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
· Eastbound left turn lane
· Eastbound through lane
· Westbound through lane
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (EVV)
· Traffic Signal
Fruitvale Avenue (NS) at:
Olive Drive (EW)
· Northbound right turn overlap
Hageman Road (EVV)
· Northbound left turn lane
·Northbound through lane
· Northbound right turn overlap
· Southbound left turn lane
· Southbound ricjht turn overlap
· Eastbound dual through lane
· Westbound through lane
Krebs Road (EW)
· Traffic signal
· Northbound through lanE!
· Southbound through lane
Downing Avenue (EW)
· Traffic signal
· Northbound through lanE!
· Southbound through lane
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (EVV)
· Southbound left turn lane
· Eastbound through lane
· Westbound through lane
Mohawk Street (NS) at:
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (EW)
· Traffic signal
· Northbound dual left turn lane
· Northbound dual through lanes
· Northbound right turn lane with overlap
· Southbound dual left turn lanes
· Southbound dual through lanes
· Southbound right turn lanes with overlap
· Eastbound left turn lane
· Eastbound dual through ~anes
· Eastbound right turn overlap
· Westbound left: turn lanes
Page 39 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Westbound dual through lanes
Westbound right turn overlap
Landco Road (NS) at:
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (Et,~
· Southbound left turn lane
· Eastbound left turn lane
· Eastbound dual through lanes
· Westbound dual through lanes
Knudsen Drive (NS) at:
Norris Road (El/V)
· Traffic signal
· Northbound shared left turn lane
O~ve Drive (EVV)
· Northbound left turn lane
· Northbound right turn overlap
· Southbound left turn lane
· Eastbound through lane
· Westbound left! turn lane
· Westbound through lane,
Gibson Street (NS) at:
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (El/V)
· Northbound left turn ~ane
· Southbound left turn lane
· Eastbound left turn lane
· Eastbound duel through lanes
· Westbound dual through lanes
SR-99
Freeway SB Ramps (hIS) at:
Olive Drive (EVV)
· Traffic signal
· Eastbound threugh lane
· Westbound through lane
State Road (NS) at:
O~ve Drive (EVV)
· Eastbound threugh lane
· Westbound through lane
Roberts Lane (NS) at:
Olive Drive (El/V)
Page 40 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Northbound left turn lane
Southbound right turn lane with right turn overlap
Eastbound left turn lane
Eastbound right turn overlap
Buck Owens Boulevard (NS) at:
Rio Mirada Drive (EW)
· Traffic signal
SR-99 Freeway NB Ramps (EH/)
· Northbound right turn lane
· Southbound right turn lane
· Eastbound left turn lane
· Eastbound right turn lane
· Westbound left turn lane
Rosedale Highway- SR-58 (EVV)
· Southbound frae right turn lane
· Eastbound threugh lane
· Westbound through lane,
· Westbound free right turn lane
The project shall contribute to off-site innprevements in accordance with the Capital Improvement
Plan and establishment of transportation impact fees for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan Area (Kern County Resolution 92-196 and 92-195 and Section 15.84 City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code).
5.9-2d The off-site roadway system shall be improved to roadway classifications as
shown on the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Comprehensive Circulation Plan. The
implementation of off-site improvements shall be determined as future entitlements are granted for
development in and around the project area.
5.9-2e The developer shall be required to pay his proportionate share of all the year
2020 mitigation measures as specified in sections 5.9-2a through 5.9-2c of the DEIR. A fee
schedule shall be prepared by the developer with a requirement for approval prior to recordation
of a subdivision map or final occupancy of any commercial development with fees being paid at time
of building permit on a per unit basis.
5.9-2f The traffic impact fee schedule shall also include computation of fees for
those facilities on the Phase 2 RTIF list which are not included in the improvements specifically
listed for Year 2020. These additional facilities shall include all facilities on the RTIF list within the
influence area of the project which is generally the area bounded by Coffee Road, Norris Road,
Roberts Lane, Freeway 99 arid Rosedale Highway. The additional facilities include, but are not
limited to, the folbwing:
Page 41 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Olive Drive from Knudsen Drive to Coffee Road
Mohawk Stree'l from California Avenue to Rosedale Highway
Mohawk Street Bridge over the Kern River
Various other signals, bridges, culverts and improvements within the study area
which are on the RTIF list.
SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Schools
5.10-3 Project implernentation may create the need for additional public facilities.
Significance:' Potentially Si,~rnificant impact. Government Code Section 65995 is
currently deemed to provide fu~ and complete mitigation.
Beardslev School District. Project implementation would generate 130 new students for the
Beardsley School District. The District has been, and continues to be, overcrowded especially in
grades K-6. Current overcrowding is exacerbated by other development taking place in the District.
The 130 additional sludents from this project cannot be accommodated by adding relocatable
classrooms to existing sites. More classrooms at this site can only be seen as a temporary
measure until a new elementary school is constructed. The District and this project's proponent
have been in discussions regarding the District's acquisition of a school site in the project area. The
school site would make it possible for the district to construct the new school necessary to
accommodate the remaining !students who would come from this project.
Fruitvale School District. Project implementation would generate 298 new students for the Fruitvale
School District, including 236 K-6 students who would create severe overcrowding of Discovery
School. When combined with other development in the District, the cumulative effects would be
significant at the Fruitvale Junior High School as well. The overcrowded status of the District's
facilities has been recognized by the State AlBocation Board which has determined that the District
is eligible for new construction funding at all grade levels. Depending on when these 298 students
arrive, it is possible that at least some of them can be accommodated by adding relocatables at
existing schools. However, based on current enrollment projections, the district would have to
construct at least one new elementary school to accommodate students from this project and other
students expected to enter district schools in the future.
Kern Hiqh School District. Project implementation would generate 133 new students for the Kern
High School District. The District has been and continues to be overcrowded. While the district's
high schools have been permitted to go over their capacity in the short-term by using relocatable
classrooms, the overcrowding of specialized classrooms, rest rooms, cafeteria, and athletic facilities
means that this can only be seen as an interim measure until a new high school is built to
accommodate students from tlhis project and other students expected to enter district schools in the
future.
Page 42 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Mitiqation Measures
5.10-3 In accordance with A.B. 2926, the developer shall pay development fees
levied in accordance with Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Sections 65995,
65995.5 and 65995.7.
Recreation
Potential Impact
5.10-6 Project implementation may create a demand for additional park land which may
result in an adverse physical effect on the environment and may increase the use of existing
recreational facilities. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Compliance with
the Quimby Act and the City's standards and regulations would offset the increased
demand for park land thereby' reducing potential impacts to existing facilities.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Fiindinqs
The projected population increase associated with the proposed project would substantially
increase the use of existing recreational facilities, as well as create a demand for additional park
land. The applicant would be required to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.80. Based
upon Code criteria, project implementation may create a demand for approximately five acres of
neighborhood park land. The project applicantwould be required to provide the additional five acres
to the City or pay an in lieu fees for park land acquisition and development. The applicant would
also be required to pay a park development fee of $615 per each new single-family residential
building permit.
Payment of park development fees, as well as compliance with Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.82,
would offset the increased demand for additional park land, thereby minimizing potential impacts
upon the existing recreational facilities, and reducing the preject's impacts with respect to
recreational facilities to a less than significant level.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
Page 43 o:F 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of IFindings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
5.10-6a In compliance with the Quimby Act, the developer shall either dedicate
land, or pay in lieu fees pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.80 which requires developers
of new residential uses to provide 2.5 acres of land per population projections of 1000, based on
fair market value. Accordingly, project implementation would create a demand for approximately
five acres of neighborhood park land.
5.10-6b Development of park land off site, if necessary, shall be subject to
further environmental review to ensure that significant environmental effects, if any, are mitigated
on a site specific basis.
Wastewater
Potential Impact
5.10-7 Project implementation may generate additional wastewater beyond current
conditions and may rE;quire an incremental expansion of the existing sewerage system.
Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the specified
mitigation measures would reduce impacts with regards to wastewater systems and
facilities to a less than significant level.
Findinq
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Project implementation would increase the quantity of wastewaterwhich is attributable to the project
sites, however, this is not considered a significant increase in service demand. Further, there is
available capacity in the trunk line and treatment plant to serve the project area.
Project implementation would ,generate additional wastewater beyond current conditions and would
require an incremental expansion of the existing sewage system. This required system expansion
is not considered a significanll impact since these facilities would be installed within the project's
limits as a part of project construction. Payment of District fees would offset the costs to construct
an incremental expansion of the existing sewerage system. Further, project implementation would
not necessitate modifications to the existing treatment plant.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporeted into the project.
Page 44 of 48
,,.:& ~. ,': ,7,: ,,,
:;.,,
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
5.10-7a The project applicant shall pay the appropriate connection fee to the
North of River Sanitary District No. 1, All new wastewater facilities shall be located within public
rights-of-way or utility easeme;nts.
5.10-7b Wastewater system design and all public mains, meters, and
appurtenances shall be installed and constructed in compliance with the applicable standards,
specifications, policies, and rsgulations of the North of River Sanitary District No. 1.
5.10-7c Developrnent of wastewater facilities off site, if necessary, shall be
subject to further environmental review to ensure that significant environmental effects, if any, are
mitigated on a site specific basis.
Water
Potential Impact
5.10-8 Project implementation may increase the demand for water beyond current
conditions and may require an incremental expansion of the existing water system.
Significance:' Potentially Si_qnificant Impact. Implementation of the specified
mitigation measures; would reduce impacts with regards to water systems and
facilities to a less than significant level.
Findinfi
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
Project implementation would generate additional water demand beyond current conditions and
require an incremental expansion of the existing water system. This required system expansion is
not considered a significant impact since these facilities would be installed within the proiect's limits.
Payment of District fees would offset the costs to construct an incremental expansion of the existing
water system.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
Page 45 of 48
EXHIBIT "A'
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPNZC P99-0482
5.10-8a The developer shall pay the appropriate connection fee to the
California Water SeNice Company. All new water facilities sha~l be installed within public
rights-of-way or utility easemsnts.
5.10-8b Water system design and all public water mains, meters, and
appurtenances shall be installed and constructed in compliance with the applicable standards,
specifications, policies, and rsgulations of the California Water Service Company.
5.10-8c Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall install
low water use fixtures, plumbing fixtures and appliances, to the satisfaction of the California Water
Service Company. These fixtures/appliiances may include the following:
Interior:
· Supply line pressure: Reduce water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square
inch (psi) to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve;
· Drinkinq fountains: Equip drinking fountains with self-closing valves; and
· UUtra*low flush toilets: Install 1.6 gallon per flush toilets in all new construction.
Exterior:
Landscape witIn low water-consuming plants wherever feasible;
Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to Uawn-dependant uses;
Group plants oIF similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low-water-using plants;
Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas (mulch applied on top of soil will
improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil
compaction);
Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs (established plants are often
adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish
replacement w;getation);
Install efficient: irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and
maximize the water which will reach the plant roots (drip irrigation, soil moisture
sensors, and automatic; irrigation systems are a few methods to consider in
increasing irricjation efficiency and may be feasible for individual development
projects; and
Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff.
5.10-Sd Developrnent of water facilities off site, if necessary, shall be subject
to further environmental review to ensure that signific:ant environmental effects, if any, are mitigated
on a site specific basis.
Page 46 o:[ 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
Solid Waste
Potential Impact
5.10-9 Development of the project site may result in increased solid waste generation.
Significance: Less 7~an Significant Impact. Although sufficient permitted capacity
exists at the landfills to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs,
implementation of the specified mitigation measures would reduce the volume of
solid wastes which arre ultimately disposed.
Finding
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environments.
Facts in Support of Findinqs
The proposed residential uses are projected to generate additional solid waste which would
increase the demand to provide disposal service and would incrementally shorten the lifespan of
the Shafter-Wasco and Bena Landfills. Significant impacts are not anticipated with respect to solid
waste disposal. The volume of the project's solid waste which would be ultimately disposed of at
the landfills would be reduced due to the requirements of AB 939 and the project's incorporation of
design features for the storage and collection of recyclables, as well as the required compliance with
federal, state, and local statute;s and regulations related to solid waste would reduce impacts in this
regard to a less than significant level.
Project implementation would not result in a significant impact with respect to solid waste generation
since sufficient permitted capacity exists at the landfills to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs.
Mitiqation Measures
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by virtue of project design features and/or the following mitigation measures as identified
in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
5.10-9 The preposed project shall incorporate design features for the storage and
collection of recyclablles pursuant to federal, state, and local statutes (i.e., Bakersfield Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.32) and regulations related to solid waste.
S :\Gpa-june\P990482 Kyle Garter ElR\hfitialStudF'Find Of Fact, Exh,wpd
Page 47 of 48
EXHIBIT "A"
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
GPA/ZC P99-0482
This page left intentionally blank
S:\Gpa-June/P990482 Kyle Garter ElR\lnitialStudy,Find Of Fact, Exh.wpd
Page 48 of 48
EXHIBIT "B"
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0482
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 of Bakersfield, 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 finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to
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 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482
indicated the project would result in contributions to air quality 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 air quality
impacts, the project's emissions would still contribute to a violation of state and federal clean air
standards.
The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker for the project, has reviewed and
considered the information contained in both the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for General Plan
Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482 and the publiic record. The project benefits include the
following:
reduction in the acreage of industrially designated property;
· Creation of a buffer between existing industrial and proposed residential;
Cleanup of property covered with various abandoned oil recovery structures, oil
storage tanks and a huge! network of underground oil pipes;
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "B"
Statement of Overriding Considerations
GPA/ZC P99-0482
· Creation of a planned residential and commercial development;
Accommodates new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, and
accounts for environmental hazards; and
Provides a local street network that contributes to the quality and safety of residential
neighborhoods.
The Lead Agency makes the following finding, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines,
with regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations for General Plan Amendment & Zone
Change P99-0482:
California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15093(a) states: If the 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 of
Bakersfield therefore finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse air quality
impacts associated with General Plan Amendment & Zone Change P99-0482, which can not be
eliminated or reduced to a level less than significant.
S:\Gpa-lunekP990482 Kyle CaIler EIRXlnida Stuclv/Overr d ng Considera ions,wpd
Page 2 of 2