Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3846ORDINANCE NO. 3 8 4 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 122-0t AND 122-12 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 691.37 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE KERN RIVER CANAL, WHITE LANE (EXTENDED), BUENA VISTA ROAD AND ALLEN ROAD (EXTENDED) FROM AN A-20A (AGRICULTURE - 20-ACRE MINIMUM) ZONE TO AN R-I (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) AND C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONES. WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield generally located between the Kern River Canal, White Lane (extended), Buena Vista Road and Allen Road (extended); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 34-98 on March 19, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to approve a change from A-20A (Agriculture twenty-acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling - 6,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) on 412.50 acres, to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/2,500 sq.ft./dwelling unit) on 242.69 acres and to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 36.18 acres, as delineated on attached Zoning Map Nos. 122-01 and 122-12 marked Exhibit "B", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several general and specific findings of fact which recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and changes in zoning of the subject property from A-20A to R-l, R-2 and C-2 and the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations, as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Report was advertised and posted on February 4, 1998, in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows agriculture and urban type development; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Section 15091 findings and supporting rationale regarding identified significant environmental effects is attached hereto as Exhibit "E;" and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Section 150921 the City of Bakersfield finds that except for air quality impacts, agriculture impacts and aesthetics/light/glare impacts, all other impacts on the environment identified as significant in said EIR have been eliminated or the effects have been substantially lessened where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091; and WHEREAS, furthermore in accordance with CEQA Section 15092, the City of Bakersfield determined that the remaining significant impact to air quality, agriculture and aesthetics/light/glare found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093, as shown in attached Exhibit "D;" and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations with supporting reasons is recommended for adoption as shown on attached Exhibit "D;" and WHEREAS, In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Exhibit "F" attached hereto contains the monitoring program for implementing the adopted mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. All required public notices have been given. 3. That this project was subject to an Environmental Impact Report and the entire environmental record is incorporated by reference as set forth in the resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR. 4. A Final EIR was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA and local CEQA Implementation Resolution #76-97 for this project. 5. That Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be amended by changing the land use zoning on Map Nos. 122-01 and 122-12 attached hereto as Exhibit "B" of that certain property in said City of Bakersfield as herein before described. 6. That Zone Change No. P96-0589 is consistent with General Plan Amendment P96-0589. 7. That Zone Change No. P97-0589, as outlined above, is hereby recommended for approval subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A", and subject to approval of General Plan Amendment P96-0589. SECTION 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct. 2. Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on Zoning Map. Nos. 122-01 and 122-12 marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "C ". 2 4. Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures listed in attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage, ......... O00 ......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAY 2 0 1998 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCiLMEMBE9 DeMOND, CAR~, McDERMOTT~, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBSR ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER 4BSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Offici~/~,Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakers~eld APPROVED MAY 2 I} ~ BO MAYOR of theJcity of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY BY: 0589/ozc-cc RED/pjt April 9, 1998 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval and Summary of Mitigation Measures EXHIBIT "A" General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Circulation Element Amendment P96-0589 Recommended Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval Planning Department: Prior to approval of any tentative tract map, a conceptual master park plan for park locations shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Public Works Department: All traffic and circulation mitigation measures from the EIR shall be incorporated into project development plans. Implementation of the above referenced mitigation shall include this requirement. Prior to issuance of any building permit, submission for approval of any subdivision or development plan, a traffic impact fee schedule shall be established in accordance with Mitigation Measures section 5.5-1 of the Draft EIR. Said schedule shall be based on calculations, submitted by the applicant, of the project's share of all traffic impacts established in the DEIR and shall be computed in accordance with the policies established under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Traffic Impact Fee ordinance. Said calculations shall result in a fee schedule for all land use types within the GPA area. The schedule shall be equivalent in all ways (except unit fee amounts) to the existing fee schedule. Prior to recordation of a Final Map or Parcel Map within the segment, fully executed offers of dedication for all collector and arterial streets within or adjacent to the segment shall be submitted to the City Engineer. The determination of how many segments the major streets may be constructed in will be made at the time of initial subdivision. The subdivider may be required to enter into an agreement with the City and post approved security to ensure completion of the major streets. 0589-ea EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Public Health and Safety Agricultural Use of Property/Adjacent Properties 5.3-1 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 sites. Should contaminant levels be in excess of acceptable Federal, State and/or County levels, the project applicant shall identify and implement remedial action, subject to approval by the City of Bakersfield and responsible regulatory agencies to reduce contaminants to acceptable levels. Oil Fields 5.3-3a The following Mitigation Measure applies to the Buena Vista project site only: Pursuant to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, active wells and associated equipment within the project area shall be enclosed by an eight-foot block wall, with barbed wire on the inside at the seven-foot level. 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 applicant/developer. 5.3-3b Sufficient access to the existing and abandoned wells shall be maintained in order for the Division of Gas, Oil and Geothermal Resources (Division) to investigate the condition of the wellheads and check for leakage. If any reabandonments are required, the Division shall furnish necessary specifications to the property owner. 5.3-3c If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered, or damaged during excavation or grading activities, remedial plugging operations pursuant to Division of Gas, Oil and Geothermal Resources requirements would be required. 5.3-3d Prior to issuance of building permits, all oil contaminated soil shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the Local Unified Program Agency (the Office of Environmental Services - Bakersfield City Fire Department) in conjunction with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and/or California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Valley Fever 5.3-5 At the initial construction meeting prior to grading activities, all construction workers must be informed as to the symptoms of Valley Fever. Flooding/Kern River 5.3-7a The following Mitigation Measure applies to the Kern River Ranch project site only: Prior to recording of any Final Map with parcels less than 20 acres for land located within Zone ^, a levee shall be constructed. The location and dimensions of the levee proposed in the northern portion of the Kern River Ranch project site shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. The levee shall b~. located outside the limits of the primary and secondary floodways. ?' '~ , R1GfNA, Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 2 5.3-7b The following Mitigation Measure applies to the Kern River Ranch project site only: Prior to recordation of a final map with less than 20 acres for land located within Zone A, as defined on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "Flood Rate Insurance Map," the developer shall comply with the requirements of FEMA or revise the FEMA map. The Kern River Ranch project applicant shall furnish to the City of Bakersfield all documentation required by FEMA. Aesthetics/Light and Glare Traffic and Circulation Trip Generation and Distribution 5.5-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program. The project applicants shall participate in the improvements required on a pro-rata fair-share basis as provided in Table 8, BUENA VISTA & KERN RIVER RANCH: INTERSECTION PRO-RATA SHARE OF MITIGATION/REQUIRED MITIGATION, of the Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Buena Vista & Kern River Ranch Cumulative Impact, dated June 1997. To accommodate 2020 cumulative traffic plus Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project traffic volumes, the above referenced fees shall be used to provide the following improvements: Intersection Improvements Rosedale Highway and Renfro Road: add eastbound through lane and westbound through lane (LOS C); Rosedale Highway and Fruitvale Drive: add southbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane (LOS C); Brimhall Road and Allen Road: add eastbound left turn lane, westbound left turn lane, northbound through lane, and southbound through lane (LOS C); Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive: add southbound right turn lane (LOS C); Stockdale Highway and Heath Road: provide exclusive turn lanes for southbound approach (LOS B); Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road: add eastbound lane (LOS C); Stockdale Highway and Allen Road: add northbound left turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left Turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane, and westbound left turn lane (LOS C); Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road: add westbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane (LOS C); Kern River Ranch Entrance #1 and Buena Vista Road: add eastbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane, northbound left turn lane, and southbound right turn lane (with Kern River Ranch) (LOS B); Deer Peak Drive and Buena Vista Road: add northbound through lane, southbound through lane and southbound left turn lane (LOS B); Ming Avenue and Allen Road: add westbound left turn lane, northbound right turn lane, and two southbound left turn lanes (LOS B); Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 3 Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road: full expansion per City of Bakersfield's Standard Detail T-4 (LOS C); Ming Avenue and Ashe Road: add northbound left turn lane (LOS C); Chamber Boulevard and Buena Vista Road: provide two left turn lanes/one through lane/one right turn lane for eastbound approach, one left turn lane/one through lane/one right turn lane for westbound approach, one left turn lane/two through lanes/one right turn lane for northbound approach, and one left turn lane/two through lanes/one right turn lane for southbound approach (with Buena Vista) (LOS C); White Lane and Buena Vista Road: add two eastbound left turn lanes, eastbound right turn lane, northbound through lane, northbound right turn lane, southbound left turn lane, southbound through lane, and southbound right turn lane (LOS C); and Panama Lane and Gosford Road: add northbound left and southbound left (LOS A). Segment Improvements Rosedale Highway (Calloway Drive to Fruitvale Avenue): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Brimhall Road (Jewetta Road to Calloway Road): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Buena Vista Road to Old River Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Gosford Road to Ashe Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Real Road to Wible Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Ming Avenue (Allen Road to Buena Vista Road): widen to four lanes (LOS B); Taft Highway (Buena Vista Road to Old River Road): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Allen Road (Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Allen Road (Rosedale Highway to Stockdale Highway): widen to four lanes (LOS C); Allen Road (Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue): widen to four lanes (LOS C); Buena Vista Road (Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue): widen to six lanes/add median (LOS A); Buena Vista Road (Ming Avenue to White Lane): widen to six lanes/add median (LOS B); Buena Vista Road (White Lane to Pacheco): widen to four lanes (LOS A); and Gosford Road (Pacheco Road to Panama Lane): widen to four lanes (LOS A). Traffic Signal Warrant 5.5-2a The applicant(s) shall participate in the improvements required on a pro-rata fair-share basis as provided in Table 8, BUENA VISTA & KERN RIVER RANCH: INTERSECTION PRO-RATA SHARE OF MITIGATION/REQUIRED MITIGATION, of the Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Buena Vista & Kern River Ranch Cumulative Impact, dated June 1997. 3W, GiNAL Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 4 To accommodate Year 2020 cumulative traffic with projects condition, traffic signals are projected to be required at the following intersections and the above referenced fees shall be used to provide the following improvements: Stockdale Highway and Heath Road; Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road; Kern River Ranch Entrance #1 and Buena Vista Road; Deer Peak Drive and Buena Vista Road; Chamber Boulevard and Buena Vista Road; Pacheco Road and Gosford Road; and Ming Avenue and Allen Road. 5.5-2b The traffic signals required as a result of the proposed project shall include an interconnect of the signals to function in a coordinated system with existing and planned signals. Noise Long-Term Noise Impacts 5.6-2a To reduce significant traffic noise impacts to below 65 dBA CNEL at proposed residential locations adjacent to collector and arterial roadways, the project applicant(s) shall incorporate sound barriers, along cited roadways. Since lot design and grading plans are not yet available, the exact height and location of barriers cannot be accurately determined at this time. However, barriers (i.e., berms, sound walls) between six and eight feet may be required to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. 5.6-2b Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed commercial uses, the project applicant shall demonstrate that project commercial noise source impacts on nearby residences are below those indicated in the City's hourly noise level performance standards. 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. Air Quality Short-Term Impacts 5.7-1a 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. Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 5 5.7-1b 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. 57-1c The construction grading plans shall include a statement that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specifications. 5.7-1d The construction grading plans shall include a statement that work crews shall shut off construction equipment when not in use. Long-Term Impacts 5.7-2 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-parted glass shall be used in all windows. Energy efficient low-sodium parking lot lights shall be used. One (1) bicycle rack shall be provided in each of the proposed commercial areas. Cumulative Impacts 5.7-4 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 Sensitive Resources 5.8-1a Prior to the issuance of a grading permits, the project proponents shall comply with all appropriate terms and conditions of the MBHCP to the City. The MBHCP requires certain take avoidance measures for the San Joaquin kit fox. MBHCP guidelines regarding tracking and excavation shall be followed to prevent entrapment of kit fox in dens. Specific measures during the construction phase of the project shall be implemented and include the following: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted prior to site grading to search for native kit fox dens (specifically tracking shall be conducted at the potential active den located in the southeastern portion of the Kern River Ranch projec~ site). All pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of kit fox. If they are not capped or otherwise covered, they shall be inspected daily prior to burial or closure to ensure no kit foxes, or other protected species, become entrapped. Exhibit "A " Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 6 Excavations shall either be constructed with escape ramps or be covered to prevent entrapment. Or the site(s) could be protected during construction, such as with a wildlife exclusion fence, which would eliminate the possibility of ranging animals from being harmed during construction. All food, garbage, and plastic shall be disposed of in closed containers and regularly removed from the site to minimize attracting ranging kit fox or other animals. With the exception of Swainson's hawk (see following mitigation measure), impacts to special- status species on the project site are covered under the terms and conditions of the MBHCP and associated Implementing Agreement. The compensation and avoidance requirements of the MBHCP and buffer zones proposed as part of this project are consistent and follow an ecosystem management approach for endangered species, and provide adequate compensation of the Swainson's hawk and all other potentially occurring special-status species. 58-1b Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall comply with the following raptor nest mitigation requirements: If grading is proposed to occur during the raptor nesting season (February through September), a focused survey for raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist prior to grading activities in order to identify active nests in areas potentially impacted by project implementation. If construction is proposed to take place during the raptor nesting/breeding season (February through September), no construction activity shall take place within 500 feet of an active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified raptor biologist). Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (October through January) 5.8-1c The following mitigation measures applies to the Kern River Ranch project site only: Construction directly adjacent to sensitive riparian habitat potentially occupied by threatened, endangered and other protected species may result in take of listed species ranging through the construction site. During construction and development on the Kern River Ranch project site, the following mitigation measure is recommended to help prevent indirect or direct take of species within the primary floodplain directly adjacent to the project area, for which the MBHCP does not cover take or provide compensation or mitigation: River Access Management: The area alongside the Kern River riparian corridor should be fenced-off, and signs put up, during construction to protect it and prevent damage to vegetation, burrows and nests from heavy equipment, construction vehicles, and to control public access. The off-site adjacent sycamore specimen tree is located within Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 7 this area just north of the carrot field and special attention should be made to prevent damage to this tree. Trees and shrubs should be planted along the Kern River interface to help mitigate for noise, provide protective cover, and minimize adverse impacts of night lighting on a wildlife species which inhabit the adjacent floodplain and river riparian habitat. 5.8-1d The presence of any previously unidentified protected species which are not addressed in the MBHCP, including those protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, should be avoided and evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to construction. The Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) should be notified of previously unreported protected species. Any unanticipated take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to the CDFG and USFWS Cultural Resources Paleontology 5.9-1 If archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during excavation and grading activities on-site, the contractor shall stop all work and the developer shall retain a qualified archeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall be followed and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes regulations of the Native American Heritage Commission. Archaeology 5.9-2b The following measure applies to the Buena Vista project only: An archaeological monitor shall be present at CA-KER-3962 during any subsurface construction activities. If significant cultural resources are discovered during monitoring, more testing or data recovery may be required. 5.9-2c The following measure applies to the Kern River Ranch project only: An archaeological monitor shall be present at CA-KER-3964 during any subsurface construction activities. If significant cultural resources are discovered during monitoring, more testing or data recovery may be required. 5.9-2d Should human remains be discovered at any time on any portion of the project, work shall halt and the coroner be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). In the absence of an archaeological monitor, a qualified archaeologist and the local Native American community, shall also be notified. Exhibit "A" Summary of Mitigation Measures Page 8 Public Services and Utilities Schools 5.10-3a The following mitigation measure applies to the Buena Vista project only: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residence within the project area, the applicant shall submit fees to the Kern County High School District and Panama- Buena Vista Union School District in the amount of $4.06 per square foot of assessable space (as defined in Section 65995 of the Government Code) for each such residence. This amount shall increase in even numbered years according to the adjustment for inflation determined by the State Allocation Board for Class B construction. Payment would not be required to a district which has certified in writing that alternative mitigation measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school overcrowding. 5.10-3b The following mitigation measure applies to the Kern River Ranch project site only: The following shall apply to the Kern River Ranch portion of the project located within the Rosedale Union School District. In accordance with the Kern County Plan, the Kern High School district has identified that the mitigation required of projects such as this is an inflation-indexed $1.42. Payment shall not be required to the Kern High School District if it has certified in writing that alternative mitigation measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school overcrowding. With respect to the Rosedale Union School District, residential property would require either annexation of the property into the CFD 92-1; or, prior to issuance of a building permit within this portion of the project area, the Rosedale Union School District must be paid the following amounts as applicable: (a) $6637.47 per single-family residence; or (b) $2,504.75 per multi-family residence; or (c) $0.5954 per square foot of commercial/industrial "gross floor area"; or (d) such higher or lower amount that is then equal to such higher amount that may have been lawfully established by CFD 92-1 as the amount required to prepay its Single Payment and Annual Special Taxes. EXHIBIT "B" Maps ~.Z ZONE CHANGE P96-0589 A-~'OA TO R-2 ZONING MAP 122-01 ZONE CHANGE P96-0589 A-~0A TO C--2 A--2OA TO R-2 A-ROA TO R-I A-~OA TO C-2 ~ · > q EKHIBI~iB~ . ZONING MAP 122-12 EXHIBIT "C" Legal Description EXHIBIT 'C' LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSED C-2 (FROM A) ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, T.30S., R.26E., M.D.M., CITY OF BAKERS~iJ:LD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12, THLeNCE N,01°I4'19"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 1502.90 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAlD WEST LINE, S.56°45'56"E., 806,01 FEET; THENCE S.0i°14' 19"W., i069.04 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N.89° 19'5 I"W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 683.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.18 ACRES. PROPOSED R-2 (FROM A) ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, T.30S., R. 26E., M.D.M., C1TY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORA~R OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S.89°19'51"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 683.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE, N.01°I4'I9"E., 1069.04 FEET; THENCE S.56°4~'56"E., 1986.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N, 89*19'$1"W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 1684.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.67 ACRES. PROPOSED R-20;'ROMA) ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 12. T.30S.. R. 26E.. M.D.M., CITY' OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ATTHE SOLrl'FIEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N.g9°I9'49"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 2644.91 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARII:R CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE, N.01°02'08"E., 3300.04 FEET; THENCE S.$9°06'23"E., i219,$6 FEET; THENCE S.01°02'08"W., 1486.82 FEET; THENCE N.73°13'52"E., 644.29 i-~:1 TO TH]E BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000.00 l-I:~'l; ~CE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17"35'53" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 614.29 FEET: THENCE S.89°10'15"E.. 200.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S.00~49'45"W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 2092.87 l;b.~f TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 157.57 ACRES. PROPOSED R-I(FROMA) ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 12. T.30S.. R. 26E., M.D.M., CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHAMBER BOULEVARD AND BUENA VISTA ROAD, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 5221 AS F~-~ NOVEMBER 27, 1991 IN BOOK 39 OF MAPS AT PAGES 9 AND l0 IN THE OFFICE OF TIIE KERN COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 12, N.89°10'15"W., l-lzl;l' TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°35 ARC DISTANCE OF 614.29 FEET; THENCE S.73"13'52"W., 644.29 FEET; THENCE N.0I"02'08"E., k~6.82 l',~l:l; THENCE N.89°06'23"W.. i219.56 FEET: THENCE S.01°02'08"W,, 3300.04 FEET TO TH~ LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N,89°i9'51"W. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 276.74 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE, N.56°45'56"W., 2792.01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE N.01°I4'I9"E. ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 2979.41 FEET TO TI--IE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE KERN RIVER CANAL AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 4999, PAGE 427, KERN COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE N.65°34'50"E. ALONG SAID SOUTt-IERLY RIGFIT- OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 2018.28 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; TI-I~NCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, S.88°52'39"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 2361.89 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, S.00°49'43"W., 651.22 FEET; THENCE 8.88°52'39"E., 1070.24 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THIENCE 8.00~'49'43"W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 2003.98 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S,00°49'45"W. ALONG TIIE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 562.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 412.50 ACRES, PROPOSED C-2 (FROM A) ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 12, T. 30S., R. 26E., M.D.M., CITY' OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S.00°49'43"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 651.22 FEET: TI-~NCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, N.88°52'39"W., 1070.24 FEET; THENCE N.00°49'43"E., 651.22 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S.88°52'39"E. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 1070.24 FEET TO THIE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 16.00 ACRES. PROPOSED R 2 (FROM A) ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, T.30S., R.26E., M.D.M., CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOLrrHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE N. 88°52'39"W. ALONG ~ SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION I A DISTANCE OF 3432.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE KERN RIVER CANAL AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 4999, PAGE 427, KERN COUNTY Ot~IqCIAL RECORDS; THENCE N. 65°34'50"E. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 3794.41 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE 8.00°49'23"W. ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1636.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 64.45 ACRES. EXHIBIT "D" Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT "D" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental dsks 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 EtR 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 the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project indicated the project would result in contributions to agriculture and air quality impacts that would represent a significant adverse environmental effect on a project and cumulative basis. The environmental analysis has also concluded that the project would result in significant aesthetic/light and glare impacts on a 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 bott~ the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project and the public record. The project benefits include the following: Creation of a high quality, master-planned residential community that allows for the development of a vadety of residential types and densities; Provide a residential community that is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the area. As stated on Page i1-12 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and referenced in Section 5.5-1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of this Program EIR, the project site is situated within the southwest area mixed use activity center which has anticipated retail, office and residential development; Exhibit ~D" Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, and accounts for environmental hazards; and Provide 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 the Buena Vista/Kem River Ranch project: 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 agriculture, aesthetics/light and glare and air quality impacts associated with the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project, which can not be eliminated or reduced to a level less than significant. pit 3/2/98 0589/ed EXHIBIT "E" CEQA Statement of Facts and Findings EXHIBIT "E" STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED BUENA VISTA/KERN RIVER RANCH PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects of the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carded out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: ao Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Those changes 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. Specific economic, legal social technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report." The Final EtR for the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project 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 s~gnificant levels, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided. The Summary of Mitigation Measures, is based in part on the requirements contained in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. A Mitigation Monitoring Program will be adopted as part of the project Resolution. II. PROJECT SUMMARY The Buena Vista Project and the Kern River Ranch Project are individual and separate General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications. Both of these projects consist of proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and amendments to the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City. The Kern River Rancl~ project would also require an amendment to the Kern River Plan Element. The Buena Vista Project and the Kern River Ranch Project are in close proximity and are separated by the Kern River Canal, which is at a width of 120 feet. Due to this proximity, one Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the two applications. Exhibit '~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 2 Buena Vista - GPA/ZC P96-0589 This project is 691.37 acres in size and is located between the Kern River Canal, White Lane, Buena Vista Road and Allen Road. The proposed Circulation Element amendment includes deleting the adopted West Beltway Freeway alignment which transverses the subject site in a north-south orientation, and relocating segments of adopted north-south and east-west collector alignments. The Land Use Element amendments include changing the existing land use designation from R-IA (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 Acre Parcel Size) to LR (Low Density Residential, less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units/net acre) on 412.50 acres, to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential, greater than 4 and less than or equal to 10 dwelling units/net acre) on 198.07 acres, to HMR (High Medium Density Residential, greater than 7.26 and less than or equal to 17.42 dwelling units/net acre) on 44.62 acres and to GC (General Commercial) on 36.18 acres. The Zone Change/Ordinance amendments include changing the existing zoning district from A-20A (Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One-family dwelling, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size) on 412.50 acres, to R-2 (Limited Multiple-family dwelling, minimum lot area 6,000 square feet, minimum lot area of 2,500 square feet/dwelling unit) on 242.69 acres and to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 36.18 acres. Kern River Ranch - GPA/ZC P97-0074 The Kern River Ranch site is located between the Kern River, Kern River Canal, Stockdale Highway, Buena Vista Road and Allen Road. The Land Use Element Amendment area is 281.92 acres. The area of the Kern River Plan Element Amendment and the Zone Change Amendment is 280.45 acres. The Circulation Element Amendment includes deleting the adopted West Beltway Freeway and adoption of a collector alignment. The Land Use Element Amendments include changing the existing land use designation from R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture, minimum 20 acre parcel size), to GC (General Commercial) on 13.04 acres, from HR (High Density Residential, greater than 17.42 and less than or equal to 72.6 dwelling units/net acre) to LR on 1.47 acres and from RI-A to LR on the remaining 267.41 acres. The Kern River Plan Element Amendments include changing the existing land use designations from 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture) to 5.35 (Residential, maximum 7.25 units per net acre) on 267.41 acres and to 6.2 (General Commercial) on 13.04 acres. Proposed zone change amendments include changing the zoning distdct from A-20A (Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One-family dwelling, 6,000 square feet minimum size) on 267.41 acres and to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 13.04 acres. III. 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 Draft and Final EIRs prepared for the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch Project and the public record. The Lead Agency makes the following findings, pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines: 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 Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project and the public record, finds that chang~'~"~, alterations to the project will avoid or substantially lessen potentially signi~cant environmental impacts. These changes or alterations are related toSthe Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 3 implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in the Summary of Mitigation Measures of this document. 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 the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project and the public record, finds that there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which make the mitigation measures for Agriculture, Aesthetics/Light and Glare and Air Quality contained in the Draft and Final EIRs infeasible. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-maker, finds that significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts on agriculture, aesthetics/light and glare and air quality may occur with future development projects in conjunction with the Buena VistaJKem River Ranch project. 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. IV. 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: 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 impacted by the construction and operation of the Buena VistaJKern River Ranch project. 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. 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 pedod commencing July 9, 1997 and ending August 8, 1997. The aforementioned Initial Study was circulated with the NOP. Based on the Initial Study, no impacts upon earth resources and public facilities were anticipated upon project implementation, and as a result, these issues were not addressed in the Draft EIR. ° During the circulation penod for the Notice of Preparation, the City of Bakersfield as Lead Agency, advertised and conducted a public scoping meeting on August 7, 1997. A Draft EIR was prepared which analyzed project-related impacts related to the following environmental issue areas: land use and relevant planning; agdcult~r~,~ public health and safety, aesthetics/light and glare, traffic and c rcu at on, no "~', a r quality biological resources, cultural resources and public services and ~u~.ilities Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 4 Project alternatives, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative effects were also analyzed in the Draft EIR. Dudng the Draft EtR's public review pedod which began on November 25, 1997 and concluded on January 8, 1998, the Bakersfield Planning Commission held a noticed public headng at regularly-scheduled meeting of December 18, 1997 regarding the Draft EIR. The public was afforded the opportunity to orally comment on the Draft EIR at the public heanng, and the testimony was considered by the decision- makers. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency proceeded to evaluate and prepare responses to all wdtten comments received from both citizens and the public agency during the public review period. 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 EIR. Following completion of the Responses to Comments document, the Lead Agency's responses to the comments received from public agencies were transmitted to those public agencies for consideration at least 10 days pdor to the Final EIR's certification. V. 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 land use and relevant planning; agriculture, public health and safety, aesthetics/light and glare, traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. The Land Use and Relevant Planning section conclude no significant impacts for consistency with Relevant Planning Policies and compatibility with the exception of agricultural land conversion and consistency with the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's Air Quality Attainment Plan. Issues pertaining to agriculture and air quality have been addressed in their respective Final EIR Sections and Findings have been presented in this Statement of Facts and Findings. it is also noted that the Final EtR has concluded less than significant impacts/mitigation not required for Lake Isabella flooding potential, short-term aesthetic impacts, long-term aesthetic impacts, stationary noise sources, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, solid waste and communications. 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. Agriculture Potential Impact Loss of Agricultural Land 5.2-1 Development of the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project sites would result in the combined loss of 973.29 acres of Class I and II (prime) agricultural soils if i~gated, and subclass VIIc and VIs, if not irrigated. Significance: Unavoidable Significant Impact. ~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ , Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 5 Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Except for the "No Project/No Development" and "Alternative Site" Alternatives, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts on farmlands. Although the "No ProjectJNo Development' and 'Alternative Site' Alternatives would reduce farmland conversion impacts, they were rejected from further consideration because they do not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Page 3-1 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan EIR states that development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan will extend existing urban development in all directions. Page 3-1 of the 2010 General Plan concludes that conversion of pdme agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered to be a significant adverse impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact was adopted by the City Council when the General Plan EtR was certified. The 2010 General Plan currently designates the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch sites as RI-A (Resource Intensive Agriculture, minimum 20-acre parcel size). As defined by the California Land Conservation Act, prime agricultural soils include Class I and II soils, which are located on the project site. The proposed amendments to the General Plan would convert the intended use of the project sites from agricultural to urbanized and developed conditions. Since each of the sites were designated RI-A when conclusions were rendered in the 2010 General Plan EIR for Agricultural Resources, the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch Projects result in impacts which exceed the assumptions/conclusions previously stated, thus resulting in an unavoidable significant impact. The unavoidable adverse impact on farmland is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Consideration provided herein as Exhibit "2". Potential Impact Conflicts Between Proposed Urban Uses and Agricultural Activities 5.2-2 As phases of the proposed project are developed, future residents may be impacted by adjacent farming activities, which may include noise associated with harvesting, blowing dust and pesticide applications. Potentially significant impact. Compliance with local, State and Federal policies and standards would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 6 Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Development phasing, which accommodates the market demands as well as the existing crop cultivation and harvest scheduling, would allow for the continued use of pdme agricultural land on the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch sites until buildout of the project sites occurs. However, conflicts may adse from the infringement of the new residential uses within the project area, adjacent to on-going agricultural activities. Impacts of residential uses on adjacent agricultural areas can extend up to one-half mile, thereby affecting off-site farming operations. Existing restrictions and limitations placed on the grower, such as noise attenuation standards, air pollution control measures and pesticide/ fertilizer application practices would minimize the level of significance of impacts. Similarly, the construction of residential subdivisions are also regulated by local and state development standards. Standards include buffer and setbacks from adjacent agricultural operations pursuant to adopted polices set forth by the City of Bakersfield (Section 17.08.150 (a) of the City's Municipal Code requires that residential structures be set back a minimum of 50 feet from agricultural zones). Other standards include traffic, noise and air mitigation to lessen the impact to the existing land uses (for further discussion refer to Sections 5.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, 5.6, NOISE, and 5.7, AIR QUALITY, of the Final EIR). Phasing of development within the boundaries of the project sites would not eliminate the use of pesticides on adjacent agricultural lands, should they remain in agriculture production. When pesticides are used, the application is required by law to be confined to the target and to avoid contamination of non-targeted property (California Food and Agricultural Code §11501, 3 CCR 600, 6614). The Kern County Agricultural Commissioner enforces these pesticide control laws by issuing permits and responding to allegations of exposure to fugitive pesticides and resulting injuries. If a violation is found, the Agricultural Commissioner can cite the violator, levy a civil penalty, or revoke a pesticide use permit. For additional discussion regarding the use of pesticides refer to Section 5.3, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, of the Final EIR. Potential Impact Cumulative Impacts 5.2-3 Development of the proposed project, as well as the buildout of City's General Plan, would result in the cumulative loss of pdme farmland. Significance: Unavoidable Significant Impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan EIR has identified the loss of prime agricultural land as a significant unavoidable impact. Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, inc~o~n~'~+~.L. provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infea{~31e the ;_;, Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 7 mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Except for the "No Project/No Development' and 'Alternative Site" Alternatives, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts on farmlands. Although the "No ProjectJNo Development' anc~ IAItemative Site" Alternatives would reduce farmland conversion impacts, it was rejected from further consideration because they did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Page 3-1 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan EIR states that development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan will extend existing urban development in all directions. Page 3-1 of the 2010 General Plan concludes that conversion of pdme agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered to be a significant adverse impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact was adopted by the City Council when the General Plan EIR was certified. The 2010 General Plan currently designates the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch sites as RI-A (Resource Intensive Agriculture, minimum 20-acre parcel size). As defined by the California Land Conservation Act, prime agricultural soils include Class I and II soils, which are located on the project site. The proposed amendments to the General Plan would convert the intended use of the project sites from agricultural to urbanized and developed conditions. Since each of the sites were designated RI-A when conclusions were rendered in the 2010 General Plan EIR for Agricultural Resources, the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch Projects result in impacts which exceed the assumptions/conclusions previously stated, thus resulting in an unavoidable significant impact. The unavoidable adverse impact on farmland is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Consideration provided herein as Exhibit '2". Public Health and Safety Potential Impact Ac~dcultural Use of Procerty/Adiacent Properties 5.3-1 Due to the histodc use of the sites for agricultural purposes, there is a potential for pesticide residues (including DD T) to be present in the shallow soil of both project sites. Significance: A potentially significant health hazard may occur which can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required ~n, or ~ncorporeted into, the project..~ch -~:; mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. .~, ~:, Exhibit ~E' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 8 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design features and the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.3-1 Pdor 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 sites. Should contaminant levels be in excess of acceptable Federal, State and/or County levels, the project applicant shall identify and implement remedial action, subject to approval by the City of Bakersfield and responsible regulatory agencies to reduce contaminants to acceptable levels. Potential Impact Agdcu tural Use of Prooertv/Adiacent Properties 5.3-2 Agricultural uses within the development areas could create human health effects, particularly during pesticide application operations. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Compliance with local and State requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impact of the continued use of agricultural chemicals within the development areas would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the following standards: 1) agricultural chemicals are required to be used and stored in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations and guidelines; and 2) the use of buffers or barriers between agricultural and urban uses would provide a separation dudng pesticide application operations. These buffers or barriers can take the form of open space, roadways, utility corridors, canal, easements, six-foot high masonry walls, fences or landscape setbacks. Pursuant to Section 17.08.150 (a) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, residential structures are required to be set back a minimum of 50 feet from all agricultural zones. Potential Impact Oil Fields 5.3-3 Development adjacent to oil fields and oil wells can result in potential health and safety risks due to "gas migration," "attractive nuisances," "soil and groundwater contamination" and 'blowouts" when ddlling new wells, reworking old wells or abandonment of old wells. Several abandoned and active wells (two) are Iocate ~d.. within the project site's boundary, therefore, health and safety dsks are Significance: Potentially significant impact. Development adjacent~o oil fields and oil wells shall be required to comply with all Federal, Stat~ and Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 9 local standards (Bakersfield Municipal Code). In addition, compliance with mitigation measures identified by the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of project design, compliance with Federal, State and local standards and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.3-3a The followin{~ MiticJation Measure aoolies to the Buena Vista oroject site only: Pursuant to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, active wells and associated equipment within the project area shall be enclosed by an eight-foot block wall, with barbed wire on the inside at the seven-foot level. 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 applicanUdeveloper. 5.3-3b Sufficient access to the existing and abandoned wells shall be maintained in order for the Division of Gas, Oil and Geothermal Resources (Division) to investigate the condition of the wellheads and check for leakage. If any reabandonments are required, the Division shall furnish necessary specifications to the property owner. 5.3-3c If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered, or damaged during excavation or grading activities, remedial plugging operations pursuant to Division of Gas, Oil and Geothermal Resources requirements would be required. 5.3-3d Prior to issuance of building permits, all oil contaminated soil shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the Local Unified Program Agency (the Office of Environmental Services - Bakersfield City Fire Department) in conjunction with the State Regional Water Quality Control Boarci and/or California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Potential Impact Hazardous Material Users/Facilities Buena Vista Project Site 5.3-4 A potential rupture of the PaciFic Gas & Electric (PG&E) underground gas transmission pipelines located in the southwest and northern portions of the proje, c.t~^~&% area, could adversely effect the public health in the residential areas, once they developed. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Compliance with Exhibit ~' Statement of Fact~ and Findings Pa~e 10 State and applicable local regulations pertaining to setbacks would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The PG&E pipelines are under high pressure and like others, have the potential to rupture, resulting in uncontrolled releases of natural gas. A pipeline rupture could result in environmental contamination and human health affects in the residential areas, once they are developed. For safety reasons, state regulations prohibit the construction of any structures directly over the pipeline and a right-of-way is usually established. The width of the hght-of-way is negotiated between the property owner and the pipeline operator and usually ranges between 20-50 feet. Shared right-of-ways may span 60-70 feet. Types of shrubs may be resthcted, specifically, structures and large trees cannot be over pipelines. Compliance with State and applicable local regulations would reduce potential impacts health and safety related to this pipeline to less than significant levels. Potential Impact Valley Fever 5.3-5 Grading of the project sites could lead to the release of fugitive dust and spores causing valley fever. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Compliance with the required mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.3-5 At the initial construction meeting pdor to grading activities, all construction workers must be informed as to the symptoms of Valley Fever. Potential Impact Floodinq/Kem River 5.3-7 Development within the northern and western boundary of the Kern River F~nch ~:,~ Project site may be affected by flood events due to proximity to the Kerrl~River ~ Flood zones. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Pursu~t~ '~ Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 11 Agreement No. 97-212 signed on August 6, 1997 for the construction of a levee structure, construction of the levee structure and compliance with required mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of Agreement No. 97-212 and the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EtR and incorporated into the project. 5.3-7a The followinq Miticjation Measure ao=lies to the Kem River Ranch ~roiect site only: Prior to recording of any Final Map with parcels less than 20 acres, a levee shall be constructed. The location and dimensions of the levee proposed in the northern portion of the Kern River Ranch project site shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. The levee shall be located outside the limits of the primary and secondary floodways. 5.3-7b The followinq Mitiaation Measure a~;~lies to the Kern River Ranch project site only: Prior to recordation of a final map with less than 20 acres for land located within Zone A, as defined on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 'Flood Rate Insurance Map," the developer shall comply with the requirements of FEMA or revise the FEMA map. The Kern River Ranch project applicant shatl furnish to the City of Bakersfield all documentation required by FEMA. Potential Impact Cumulative Impacts 5.3-8 Future development within the study 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. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project, combined with on-going and future development of related pro~,~§K,F4~.. in the study area, would be required to be in comp ance with Federal, State and_Focal 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 require~.~ Exhibit ~' Staternem of Facts and Findings Page 12 AestheticslLight and Glare Potential Impact Light and Glare 5.4-3 Development on the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project sites may create additional light and glare impacts beyond existing conditions. Significance: Potentially significant impac[ Compliance with city codes would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Light sources from the on-site residential and commercial developments may have a significant impact on the surrounding areas. Street light illumination from the residential areas would be comparable to existing nearby residential developments to the east of the proposed project sites. Compliance with City code 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 be designed and arranged in such a manner so that light is reflected away from adjacent residential properties and streets. City building officials may also require use of glare shields or baffles for glare control of backlight. The types/locations of lighting fixtures/poles would be reviewed by the City during the site plan review process. Potential Impact Cumulative Imoacts 5 Project development, together with cumulative projects, may result in greater urbanization and the loss of views in undeveloped areas of the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield° Significance: Unavoidable Significant Impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan EIR identified an unavoidable adverse impact for aesthetics, with build-out of the General Plan. Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate cumulative aesthetic ~mpag'ts. Except for the "No Project Alternative", the alternative that was analyzed in the EIR ~3uld not avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative aesthetic impacts. The 'No Pr Exhibit 'E ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 13 Alternative was rejected from further consideration because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Construction of approved and pending projects in the local vicinity would permanently alter the nature and appearance of the west Bakersfield area through loss of open space. Secudty and street lighting would also introduce light and glare potential to the area. Aesthetic/light and glare impacts can be mitigated with the use of building matedais that are consistent with the general character of the area and proper lighting techniques to direct light on-site and away from adjacent properties. Page 3-2 of the General Plan EtR states that development in accordance with the General Plan would convert existing open space to urban uses, resulting in the incremental loss of open space within Bakersfield. This conversion was considered an unavoidable adverse impact, for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. The agricultural land use designation contained on both the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch sites was in effect at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The project proposes amendments to the General Plan to allow development of urban uses on the sites. As such, the project, together with cumulative development in western Bakersfield, would exceed the EIR assumptions/conclusions and would contribute additional impacts not previously anticipated in the General Plan EIR. This exceedance constitutes a significant and unavoidable aesthetic/light and glare cumulative impact. The unavoidable adverse impact on cumulative aesthetic conditions is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Exhibit Traffic and Circulation Potential Impact Trio Generation and Distribution 5.5-1 The proposed project would generate additional tdps on the adjacent roadways thus degrading the level of service at intersections and roadway segments identified below. Significance: Potentially significant impacL Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of improvements pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final and incorporated into the project. Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 14 5.5-1 Pdor to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant(s) shall comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program. The project applicants shall participate in the improvements required on a pro-rata fair-share basis as provided in Table 8, BUENA VISTA & KERN RIVER RANCH: INTERSECTION PRO-RATA SHARE OF MITIGATION/REQUIRED MITIGATION, of the Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Buena Vista & Kern River Ranch Cumulative Impact, dated June 1997. To accommodate 2020 cumulative traffic plus Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project traffic volumes, the above referenced fees shall be used to provide the following improvements: Intersection Improvements Rosedale Hiqhway and Renfro Road: add eastbound through lane and westbound through lane (LOS C); Rosedale Hi(~hwav and Fruitvale Drive: add southbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane (LOS C); Brimhall Road and Allen Road: add eastbound left turn lane, westbound left turn lane, northbound through lane, and southbound through lane (LOS C); Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive: add southbound right turn lane (LOS C); Stockdale Hi(~hwav and Heath Road: provide exclusive turn lanes for southbound approach (LOS B); Stockdale Hi(3hwav and Renfro Road: add eastbound lane (LOS C); Stockdale Highway and Allen Road: add northbound left turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left Turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left turn lane, eastbound dght turn lane, and westbound left turn lane (LOS C); Stockdale Hi(~hway and Buena Vista Road: add westbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane (LOS C); Kern River Ranch Entrance #1 and Buena Vista Road: add eastbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane, northbound left turn lane, and southbound right turn lane (with Kern River Ranch) (LOS B); Deer Peak Drive and Buena Vista Road: add northbound through lane, southbound through lane and southbound left turn lane (LOS B); Ming Avenue and Allen Road: add westbound left turn lane, northbound right turn lane, and two southbound left turn lanes (LOS B); Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road: full expansion per City of Bakersfield's Standard Detail T-4 (LOS C); Ming Avenue and Ashe Road: add northbound left turn lane (LOS C); Chamber Boulevard and Buena Vista Road: provide two left turn lanes/one through lane/one right turn lane for eastbound approach, one left turn lane/one through lane/one right turn lane for westbound approach, one left turn lane/two through lanes/one right turn lane for northbound approach, and one left turn lane/two through lanes/one right turn lane for southbound approach (with Buena Vista) (LOS C); VVhite Lane and Buena Vista Road: add two eastbound left turn lanes, eastbound right turn lane, northbound through lane, northbound dght tqrn lane, southbound left turn lane, southbound through lane, and sout-I'~o~J~ right turn lane (LOS C); and ' Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 15 Panama Lane and Gosford Road: add northbound left and southbound left (LOS A). Segment Improvements Rosedale Hiqhway (CallowayDrive to Fruitvale Avenue): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Brimhall Road (Jewetta Road to Calloway Road): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Buena Vista Road to Old River Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Gosford Road to Ashe Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Stockdale Highway (Real Road to Wible Road): widen to six lanes (LOS A); Mino Avenue (Alien Road to Buena Vista Road): widen to four lanes (LOS B); Taft Hk~hway (Buena Vista Road to Old River Road): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Allen Road (Haqeman Road to Rosedale Highway): widen to four lanes (LOS A); Allen Road (Rosedale Hiahwav to Stockdale Highway): widen to four lanes (LOS C); Allen Road (Stockdale Hiqhwav to Ming Avenue): widen to four lanes (LOS C); Buena Vista Road (Stockdale Highway to Minc~ Avenue): widen to six lanes/add median (LOS A); Buena Vista Road (Ming Avenue to White Lane): widen to six lanes/add median (LOS B); Buena Vista Road (White Lane to Pacheco): widen to four lanes (LOS A); and Gosford Road (Pacheco Road to Panama Lane): widen to four lanes (LOS A). Potential Impact Traffic Si(~nal Reouirements 5.5-2 As a result of project generated tdps under 2020 cumulative traffic plus Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project conditions, fifteen intersections warrant signalization. Significance: Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with installation of warranted traffic signals. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit 'E ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 16 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.5-2a The applicant(s) shall participate in the improvements required on a pro-rata fair- share basis as provided in Table 8, BUENA VISTA & KERN RIVER RANCH: INTERSECTION PRO-RATA SHARE OF MITIGATION/REQUIRED MITIGATION, of the Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Buena Vista & Kern River Ranch Cumulative Impact, dated June 1997. To accommodate Year 2020 cumulative traffic with projects condition, traffic signals are projected to be required at the following intersections and the above referenced fees shall be used to provide the following improvements: Stockdale Highway and Heath Road; Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road; Kern River Ranch Entrance #1 and Buena Vista Road; Deer Peak Ddve and Buena Vista Road; Chamber Boulevard and Buena Vista Road; Pacheco Road and Gosford Road; and Ming Avenue and Allen Road. 5.5-2b The traffic signals required as a result of the proposed project shall include an interconnect of the signals to function in a coordinated system with existing and planned signals. Potential Impacts Cumulative Impacts 5.5-3 Development of both the Buena Vista and Kem River Ranch project sites, together with future development in accordance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan would result in an increase in vehicle tdps on roadways serving the project area. Significance: Based on the findings of the traffic data contained within Appendix 14.4 of the Final EIR, year 2020 cumulative impacts related to traffic would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of Mitigation Measure No. 5.5-1 previously cited in this section, as, identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. ~ ~;%4~, Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 17 Noise Potential Impact Short-Term Construction Imoacts 5.6-1 Grading and construction on the proposed Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project sites would result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Significance: Potentially significant impacL Adherence to City code requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally would occur in the daytime hours only since City Noise Standards exempt construction noise if construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Construction noise would last the duration of construction, although it would be most noticeable dudrig the initial months of site-intensive grading and building construction for each development phase. Noise sensitive raceptors in proximity to the construction sites, may experience excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities. These impacts, however, are exempt as noted above and would be short-term, ceasing upon completion of each phase. In order to minimize short-term noise impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors even further, it is recommended that the hours of operation of noise-producing equipment should be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Potential Impact Lona-Term Noise Impacts Mobile Sources 5.6-2 Project implementation would generate additional vehicular travel on the suffounding roadway network, thereby resulting in noise level increases along these roadways. Significance: For on.site locations, impacts would be potentially significant. Along several roadways, however, implementation of required mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. For off. site locations, 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 environment. Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 18 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.6-2a To reduce significant traffic noise impacts to below 65 dBA CNEL at proposed residential locations adjacent to collector and artedal roadways, the project applicant(s) shall incorporate sound barriers, along cited roadways. Since lot design and grading plans are not yet available, the exact height and location of barriers cannot be accurately determined at this time. However, barriers (i.e., berms, sound walls) between six and eight feet may be required to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. 5.6-2b Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed commercial uses, the project applicant shall demonstrate that project commercial noise source impacts on nearby residences are below those indicated in the City's hourly noise level performance standards. To demonstrate commercial noise source impacts are below the City's standaras, the project applicant may need to include project design features such as setbacks, barhem, building location/orientation, acoustical design of buildings, etc. Potential Impact Oil Production EouiDment Noise Levels 5.6-3 Existing oil production wells may remain on-site following project development; thereby, resulting in potential noise impacts to future noise sensitive uses. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Compliance with City Noise standards would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Oil production equipment is currently located within the project sites. Noise levels measured from an oil well within the Buena Vista site resulted in levels that would exceed City standards (50 feet). If the equipment remains and residences are built in close proximity to the oil production equipment, a significant noise impact would occur. However, with implementation of setbacks and noise attenuation techniques in accordance with City standards, noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Potential Impact Cumulative Imoact 5.6-5 implementation of the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, ,would increase the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Significance: Les~.'-~han Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 19 significant impact with adherence to Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and on a project. by-project basis. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding 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. Air Quality Potential Impact Short-Term Air Quality lineacts 5.7-1 Significant short-term air quality impacts would occur durtng site preparation and project construction. Significance: Significant before and after mitigation for NOx emissions from construction equipment exhaust, significant before mitigation for PM~o fugitive dust although implementation of mitigation measures would reduce emissions to a less than significant level; and less than significant for emissions of other pollutants. Finding (a) Changes or alterations nave been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen or avoid project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. Except for the "No Project/No Development" Alternative, the project alternatives analyzed in the EIR would not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with construction activities. These alternatives would result in the same or greater air quality impacts dudng construction compared to the proposed project. The "No ProjectJ No Development" alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of fugitiv~ust. ' Compliance with SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII would result in no significant fugiti~ dust :- em~ss OhS. To ensure compl ance, the fo ow ng measure shall be ~rnplemented. ' Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 20 5.7-1a Prior to the approval of a grading plan for any residential tract, multiple family project, and commemial 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. The construction of the proposed project would include asphalt paving. Compliance with SJVUAPCD Rule 4641 would result in no significant ROG Emissions. To ensure compliance, the following measure shall be implemented. 5.7-1b 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 dudrig asphalt paving in order to comply with SJVUAPCD Rule 4641. To reduce NOx emissions, the following measures shall be completed: 5.7-1c The construction grading plans shall include a statement that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacture's specifications. 5.7-1d The construction grading plans shall include a statement that work crews shall shut off construction equipment when not in use. Implementation of the above measures will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential significant air quality impact dudrig construction. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Ovemding Considerations provided herein as Exhibit "2". Potential Impact Long-Term Air Quality ImDacts 5.7-2 The project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Significance: Significant for ROG and NOr emissions; less than significant for emissions of other pollutants. Finding {a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. ~ ~,~,:~..~, Exhibit Statement of Facts and Findings Page 21 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measure will serve to lessen or avoid project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. Except for the "No Project/No Development" Alternative, the project alternatives'analyzed in the EIR would not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with long-term operational activities. These altematives would result in the same or greater long-term air quality impacts compared to the proposed project. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. 5.7-2 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. Energy efficient low-sodium parking lot lights shall be used. One (1) bicycle rack shall be provided in each of the proposed commemial areas. Implementation of the above measures will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential significant long-term air quality impacts. The remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Exhibit Potential Impact Consistency with Air Quality Attainment Plan 5.7-3 The proposed project would not be consistent with the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD'$ Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). Significance: Significant and unavoidable im oact; mitigation measures are not feasible. Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding No feasible mitigation measures are available for the project to be consistent with the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD's AQAP. Except for the "No Project/No Development" Alternative, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could not avoid the significant and unavoidable consistency impact. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative was rejected from further consideration because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The AQAP recognized growth of the population and economy within the Air Basin. Plan predicted the workforce In Kern County to increase 40 percent and housing to mcrea~; 30 percent from 1990 to 2000 based on projections ~ncluded m the General Plans Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Pacts and Findings Page 22 for individual Cities within the County. As the project proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation to allow urban uses, the population/employment generated by the project was not originally included in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Thus, project-related population/employment increases were also not anticipated in the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD AQAP. This. inconsistency would be a significant and unavoidable project impact. The unavoidable adverse impact on the consistency with the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD AQAP is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein in Exhibit "2". Potential Impact Cumulative IreDacts 5.7-4 /mpacts to reg/onal air quality resulting from development of cumulative projects would significantly impact existing air quality levels. Significance: Significant and unavoidable impact; mitigation measures beyond adherence to standard ordinances and the Air Quality Attainment Plan have not been identified. Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding No feasible mitigation measures are available for cumulative air quality impacts. Except for the "No Project/No Development" Alternative, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could not avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative was rejected from further consideration because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Complete buildout of all cumulative projects identified in Section 4.0 of the Final EIR would result in the development of approximately 52,806 acres and the addition of approximately 164,866 dwelling units. It is not possible at this time to accurately determine the emissions that would occur from mobile sources and energy consumption at some unknown future date when the number of dwelling units and population of Metropolitan Bakersfield has doubled. Emissions resulting from mobile source emissions and energy consumption associated with complete build out of the 164,866 dwelling units would have a significant and unavoidable impact. The annual short-term and long-term emissions associated with these projects is dependent on the phasing of each project. However, the build out, sale and occupancy of the units would be controlled by market demand. Emission reduction technology, strategies and plans are constantly being developed. These include the AQAP, PM~o Attainmer~xK Demonstration Plan, Bakersfield Metropolitan Area 2010 Plan Land Use and Conserva~ Elements, Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans and Energy Aware Planning Guil;~. Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 23 The unavoidable adverse cumulative air quality impacts are considered acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein in Exhibit '2". Biological Resources Potential Impact Sensitive Resources 5.8-1 Project construction would permanently replace 973.29 acres of undeveloped land with urban development thus potentially impacting sensitive species which could occur on both the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project sites. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation in accordance with the MBHCP requirements and mitigation measures as set forth in this Program EIR would reduce impact to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified Jn the Final EtR and incorporated into the project. 5.8-1a Prior to the issuance of a grading permits, the project proponents shall comply with all appropriate terms and conditions of the MBHCP to the City. The MEIHCP requires certain take avoidance measures for the San Joaquin kit fox. MBHCP guidelines regarding tracking and excavation shall be followed to prevent entrapment of kit fox in dens. Specific measures during the construction phase of the project shall be implemented and include the following: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted prior to site grading to search for native kit fox dens (specifically tracking shall be conducted at the potential active den located in the southeastern portion of the Kern River Ranch project site). All pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of kit fox. If they are not capped or otherwise covered, they shall be inspected daily prior to budal or closure to ensure no kit foxes, or other protected species, become entrappad. Excavations shall either be constructed with escape ramps or be covered to prevent entrapment. Or the site(s) could be protected during construction, such as with a wildlife exclusion fence, would eliminate the possibility of ranging animals from being hammed during construction. ? Exhibit Statement of Facts and Findings Page 24 All food, garbage, and plastic shall be disposed of in closed containers and ragulady removed from the site to minimize attracting ranging kit fox or other animals. With the exception of SwainsoWs hawk impacts to special-status species on the project site are covered under the terms and conditions of the MBHCP and associated Implementing Agreement. The compensation and avoidance requirements of the MBHCP and buffer zones proposed as part of this project are consistent and follow an ecosystem management approach for endangered species, and provide adequate compensation of the SwainsoWs hawk and all other potentially occurring special-status species. 5.8-1b Pdor to issuance of grading permit(s), the project applicant(s) shall comply with the following raptor nest mitigation requirements: If grading is proposed to occur during the raptor nesting season (February through September), a focused sun/ey for raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist prior to grading activities in order to identify active nests in areas potentially impacted by project implementation. If construction is proposed to take place during the raptor nesting/breeding season (February through September), no construction activity shall take place within 500 feet of an active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified raptor biologist). Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed dudng the non-breeding season (October through January). 5.8-1c The followino mitioation measures aDolies to the Kern River Ranch proiect site only: Construction directly adjacent to sensitive ripanan habitat potentially occupied by threatened, endangered and other protected species may result in take of listed species ranging through the construction site. During construction and development on the Kern River Ranch project site, the following mitigation measure is recommended to help prevent indirect or direct take of species within the pdmary floodplain directly adjacent to the project area, for which the MBHCP does not cover take or provide compensation or mitigation: River Access Management: The area alongside the Kern River dpadan corridor should be fenced-off, and signs put up, dudrig construction to protect it and prevent damage to vegetation, burrows and nests from heavy equipment, construction vehicles, and to control public access. The off-site adjacent sycamore specimen tree is located within this area just north of the carrot field and special attention should be made to prevent damage to this tree. Trees and shrubs should be planted along the Kern River interface to help mitigate for noise, provide protective cover, and minimize adverse impacts of night lighting on a wildlife species which inhabit the adjacent floodplain and river dparian habitat. Exhibit ~ ° Statement of Facts and Findings Page 25 5.8-1d The presence of any previously unidentified protected species which are not addressed in the MBHCP, including those protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, should be avoided and evaluated by a qualified biologist pdor to construction. The Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) should be notified of previously unreported protected species. Any unanticipated take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to the CDFG and USFVVS. Potential Impact Sensitive Resources 5.8-2 Construction on the Kern River Ranch project site may cause increased erosion and siltation and subsequent water quality and habitat degradation in the Kern River. Significance: Compliance with City standards would reduce potential impacts to less than signiFtcant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term construction activities on the Kern River Ranch project site could result in increased sedimentation in the Kern River. Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater quality requirements would reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. Potential Impact Cumulative Imoacts 5.8-3 Development of the proposed project, as well as the buildout of the City's General Plan, would result in the cumulative loss of open space. Significance: Cumulative impacts are mitigated on a project-by-project basis and in accordance with the MBHCP requirements. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Cumulative development within the Bakersfield area has the potential to adversely affect area biological resources. Regional loss of native areas is a significant issue, althoug~l~,% Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch project does not contribute to this problem. The I~ak~field area is subject to the provisions of the MBHCP, thus cumulative impacts haVe~5~ been addressed and considered mitigable to less than significant levels. ,~;~:~i~,!."~ Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 26 Cultural Resources Potential Impact Paleontoloqy 5.9-1 Grading and excavation activities may result in impacts to paleontological resources on both the Buena Vista and Kern River sites. Significance: Potentially significant impac~ Mitigation measures consisting of inspections and monitoring would reduce the significance of impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.9-1 If archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during excavation and grading activities on-site, the contractor shall stop all work and the developer shall retain a qualified archeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall be followed and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes regulations of the Native American Hadrage Commission. Potential Impact Archaeoloay 5.9-2 Grading and excavation activities may result in impacts to archeological resources on both the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project sites. Significance: Potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the significance of impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is le~,~k-~ , than s gnificant by virtue of the fo owing reit gat on measures as dent fled n the F na/~E]~' ,,. and incorporated into the project. *~* '~ Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 27 5.9-2b The following measure agolies to the Buena Vista project only: An archaeological monitor shall be present at CA-KER-3962 dudng any subsurface construction activities. If significant cultural resources are discovered dudrig monitoring, more testing or data recovery may be required. 5.9-2c The followinq measure agolies to the Kern River Ranch project only: An archaeological monitor shall be present at CA-KER-3964 dudng any subsurface construction activities. If significant cultural resources are discovered dudng monitoring, more testing or data recovery may be required. 5.9-2d Should human remains be discovered at any time on any portion of the project, work shall halt and the coroner be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). In the absence of an archaeological monitor, a qualified archaeologist and the local Native Amedcan community, shall also be notified. Potential Impact Cumulative Impacts 5.9-3 Cumulative development may impact cultural resources in the absence of any mitigation. Significance: Evaluated on a project-by. project basis. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts and required mitigation is conducted on a project-by-project basis. This is especially true of those developments located in areas considered to have a high sensitivity for cultural (archaeological, paleontological, and historical) resources. Each incremental development is required to comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. Given this, potential cumulative effects upon cultural resources are not considered to be significant. Public Services and Utilities Potential Impact Police Services 5.10-1 Development of the project sites would increase demand on police services beyond existing conditions. Significance: Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are reduced to less than significant levels, with compliance with City standards. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated nto, the project~hich mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. '~ "c; ',, Exhibit Statement of Facts and Findings Page 28 Facts in Support of Finding Construction of the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project would create an increased demand for police services on the Bakersfield Police Department. At build-out, the proposed project may generate a population of 14,123 persons. This population increase would translate into an optimal increase of 21 sworn officers to serve the sites at project build-out (to satisfy the Bakersfield Police Departments generation factor of 1.5 sworn officers per one thousand population). This increase in population would also generate the need for additional non-sworn officers, cledcal personnel and administrative personnel. The number of support personnel required can be determined by using the formula of one non- sworn officer, one clerical and one administrative person for every six sworn officers. This increase in personnel subsequently would also increase the need for patrol units, a larger facility or a police sub-station and other law enforcement equipment. Future residential and commercial development within the site would require additional police surveillance and services, resulting in increased service demands on the Bakersfield Police Department. The addition of officers, cledcel staff, and law enforcement equipment pursuant to conditions of aporoval as set forth by the City of Bakersfield would decrease the demand on existing police services and reduce the significance of impacts to less than significant levels. Potential Impact Fire Services 5.10-2 Development of the project sites would increase demand for fire protection services beyond existing conditions. Significance: Potentially significant impact, Compliance with fire safety standards and requirements would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Both the Bakersfield Fire Department and Kern County Fire Department have reported that the extent of impacts and required mitigation would be evaluated primarily at site plan review on a project-by-project basis. Compliance with fire safety standards and requirements such as sprinkler systems, fire alarms, emergency access and adequate fire flow at public and on-site hydrants would be required during the plan check process. Conditions for approval of future development onsite may include an increase in Fire Department personnel and additional emergency equipment in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. Any development on-site shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, the California Safety Code Regulations Title 19, 22, and 27, the,~, Bakersfield Municipal Code, and the National Fire Prevention Association Standardsot -~.~ Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 29 Potential Impact Schools 5.10-3 Development of the project sites would generate additional students beyond existing conditions. Significance: Potentially significant impacL Impacts are reduced to lea.n than significant with implementation of required mitigation measures. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. 5.10-3a The following mitigation measure aDolies to the Buena Vista project ontv: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residence within the project area, the applicant shall submit fees to the Kern County High School District and Panama-Buena Vista Union School District in the amount of $4.06 per square foot of assessable space (as defined in Section 65995 of the Government Code) for each such residence. This amount shall increase in even numbered years according to the adjustment for inflation determined by the State Allocation Board for Class B construction. Payment would not be required to a district which has certified in writing that alternative mitigation measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school overcrowding. 5.10-3b The following mitigation measure aoplies to the Kern River Ranch oroject site only: The following shall apply to the Kern River Ranch portion of the project located within the Rosedale Union School District. In accordance with the Kern County Plan, the Kern High School district has identified that the mitigation required of projects such as this is an inflation-indexed $1.42. Payment shall not be required to the Kern High School District if it has certified in wnting that alternative mitigation measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school overcrowding. With respect to the Rosedale Union School District, residential property would require either annexation of the property into the CFD 92-1; or, pdor to issuance of a building permit within this portion of the project area, the Rosedale amounts ~,~%~ f;~,5* Union School District must be paid the following .:3- applicable: .... Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Pa~e 30 (a) (b) (c) (d) $6637.47 per single-family residence; or $2,504.75 per multi-family residence; or $0.5954 per square foot of commercial/ industrial "gross floor area"; or such higher or lower amount that is then equal to such higher amount that may have been lawfully established by CFD 92-1 as the amount required to prepay its Single Payment and Annual Special Taxes. 5.10-3c The followinQ mitigation measure aDolies to the Kern River Ranch oroject site in lieu of 5.10-3b in the event that the Kern County Board of Supervisors orders the transfer of territory within the oroiect site to the Panama-Buena Vista Union School District oursuant to Education Code Section 35765: "Prior to issuance of a building permit for any residence within the project area, the Kern High School District and Panama-Buena Vista Union School District must be paid the amount of $4.06 per square foot of assessable space (as defined in Section 65995 of the Government Code) for each such residence for the purpose of providing school facilities. This amount shall increase in even numbered years according to the adjustment for inflation determined by the State Allocation Board for Class B construction at its January meeting, which increase shall be effective as of the date of that meeting. Payment shall not be required to a distdct which has certified in writing that alternative mitigation measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school overcrowding." Potential Impact Weter 5. lO-4 Development of the proposed project sites would increase the existing demand for domestic water. Significance: Although not identified as a significant impact, the proposed water system design will be required to be in compliance with the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, applicable standards, specifications, policies, and regulations. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The City of Bakersfield has indicated its capability to supply adequate domestic water supplies, including water for fire protection service, based on the proposed zoning and water supply regulations. The water supply would have to conform with all Federal (United States Protection Agency), State (Califomia Department of Health Services), and the local agency (Kern County Health Department) water quality standards. Exhibit ~' ~ Statement of Facts and Findings Page 31 The Kern Water Agency, in coordination with various water service companies, is implementing water recharge and conservation programs to reduce the regional demand for water. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield oversees a program that focuses on groundwater recharge along the Kern River. Potential Impact Parks and Recreation 5.10-10 Development of the project sites would create additional demand on Parks and Recreation facilities. Significance: Analysis has concluded that although impacts are less than significant, project shall be subject to CEy of Bakersfield Municipal Code for Parks and Recreation facilities. Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The applicant shall be required to 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. The minimum park size requirement is six acres for neighborhood parks. Maximum park acreage for community parks pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.80 is upwards of 20 acres. The applicant is also required to pay park development fee of $670 per each new single-family residential building permit. The proposed project shall be required to be annexed into a maintenance assessment district for the maintenance of all street, median, and sump frontage landscaping as well as for the maintenance of parks. Potential Impact Cumulative Impacts 5.10-11 Cumulative development would increase demand for sen/ices and utitities. There would be an increased demand for the Bakersfield Police Department, Kern County SherifFs Department, Bakersfield and Kern County Fire Departments, local School Dl~tdct, and other public sen/ices. Increased consumption and generation rates are anticipated for electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater and solid waste. Significance: Analysis has concluded that cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is required. O~tI~}iNAL Exhibit ~' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 32 Finding (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Although there would be a substantial service and utility demand increase attributable to the extent of the cumulative development, the overall potential for service-related cumulative effects to occur is not considered significant. This conclusion is based pdmadly on a rationale that: 1) Already constructed residential and non-residential development would only have occurred after having satisfied all development-specific requisite permit, code, policy, and other City of Bakersfield development requirements and contributed their fair share of impact fees in order to ensure their participation in addressing area wide (cumulative) growth and service-related demand issues; and, 2) by having done the latter, each specific development would in effect be self-mitigating with regard to placing a potentially significant demand upon an area's public services and utilities. Alternatives With regard to project Alternatives, the City of Bakersfield, as lead agency, considered a range of feasible alternatives in accordance with Section 15126(d) of CEQA. The lead agency considered a "No Project" Alternative and "Alternative Site" Alternative as part of the environmental review for the project. "No Project/No Development" Alternative Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding The No Project/No Development Alternative is considered to be environmentally supedor to the proposed Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project. However, this Alternative would not realize any of the project objectives as indicated in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION of the Final EIR, thus, this alternative is not under any further consideration. Implementation of the ~No Project" Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts identified for the proposed project, however, this Alternative would not preclude the potential for development of the property at some future date. Implementation of the "No Project/No Development" Alternative would disregard the proposed project applications and retain the existing Bakersfield 2010 General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project sites. This alternative assumes that no new land uses (including infrastructure improvements) would be added to the project sites. Portions of the project sites currently under agriculture production would remain and crop rotation practices would continue. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative would not result in any of the environmenial ,::~ impacts associated with development of the Buena Vista and Kern River Ranch project. ~ Exhibit Statement of Facts and Findings Page 33 This Alternative would avoid potential impacts resulting from alteration of the project site's physical characteristics, health and safety impacts, removal of existing agricultural uses, and construction of new structures and impervious surfaces. Maintaining the project site in its existing condition would also eliminate potential impacts to any unknown cultural resources that may exist and would not alter the visual characteristics of the project sites. The "No Project/No Development" Alternative would not result in the construction of uses associated with the proposed projects; therefore, aesthetic, air quality and noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed land uses would be avoided. Traffic and circulation impacts also would not occur with this Alternative, as vacant land would not generate traffic. By not constructing the proposed uses, increased demands on public services and utilities would not occur; therefore associated impacts would be avoided. "Development in Accordance with Existing General Plan Designation" Alternative Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding Due to a significant reduction in residential units and the elimination of the commercial designations, the "Development in Accordance with Existing General Plan Designation" Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. With the ~Development in Accordance with Existing General Plan Designation" Alternative, the project area would be developed to the maximum intensity allowed under the existing 2010 General Plan land use designation. Implementation of this alternative would consist of development on 971.82 acres under land use designation R-IA (Intensive Agriculture, Minimum 20 Acre Parcel Size) and development of 1.47 acres under HR (High Density Residential-Maximum 72.6 units per acre). Development in accordance with these designations would result in construction of 154 dwelling units (106 multi-family and 48 single-family) and would allow for continued agricultural production on the individual 20-acre parcels. Implementation of the "Development in Accordance with Existing General Plan Designation" Alternative would result in a decrease in impacts related to all issue areas, particularly traffic/circulation, noise, and air quality. Impacts associated with aesthetics, public health and safety would have similarities to the proposed project due to the introduction of people and development to the area. "Estate/Residential Densities and Commercial Development" Alternative Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environment<~A~ impact report. Exhibit ~ ' Statement of Facts and Findings Page 34 Facts in Support of Finding Significant reduction in residential units, the "Estate/Residential Densities and Commemial Development" Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives. Under the "Estate Residential Densities and Commercial Development" Alternative, the project area would be developed to the maximum intensity allowed under the General Plan Estate Residential land use designation (Maximum 1.0 dwelling unit per net acre). In addition, the proposed GC (General Commercial) designations would also occur under this alternative. Implementation of this altemative would consist of development on 922.60 acres under the land use designation Estate Residential (Maximum 1.0 dwelling unit per net acre) and development of 49.2_2. acres under GC). Development in accordance with these land use designations would result in the construction of 922 single-family dwelling units. Implementation of the "Estate Residential Densities and Commercial Development" Alternative would result in a decrease in impacts related to all issue areas, particularly traffic/circulation, noise, and air quality. Impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare and public health and safety would be similar to the proposed project due to the introduction of people and development to the area. "Alternative Sites" Alternative Finding (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding Pursuant to § 15126 (d)(5)(B)l of the State CEQA Guidelines, "the key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR." In order to respond to the criteria of lessening the effects in comparison to the project, four sites in close proximity have been identified. The sites would be consistent with the project objectives, with the exception of consistency with the. location of the Southwest area mixed use activity center, as defined in the 2010 General Plan. The sites are identified as follows: The northern half and southwest quadrant of Section 27 and northem half of Section 28, located between Panama Lane and Hosking Avenue, the Hosking Avenue Extension and the Gosford Road Extension. Area between Brimhall Road on the north, Calloway Drive on the east, the Kern River and Stockdale Highway on the south and Allen Road on the west. Southern portion of Section 18, between Old River Road on the east, Pacheco... Road on the south and Buena Vista Road on the west. ~ %~.. Exhibit ~ ~ Statement of Facts and Findings Page 35 Each of the three sites are void of agricultural production. The elimination of the pdme agricultural land on the Buena Vista/Kern River Ranch sites has been identified as significant project impact. Although each of the three sites would reduce farmland conversion impacts, impacts associated with a!r quality and cumulative aesthetic impacts would be significant, which is consistent with the proposed project. Thus, impacts other than farmland conversion may not be substantially reduced but instead would be redistdbuted. Although the Alternative Sites Alternative would result in reduced farmland conversion impacts, the density of development along with corresponding impacts for traffic, air quality, noise and demand on public services and utilities may not be substantially reduced but instead would be redistdbuted. Although impacts for the most part would be redistdbuted, the reduction in farmland conversion impacts would result in the Alternative Sites Alternative being environmentally superior to the proposed project. EXHIBIT "F" Mitigation Monitoring Program . o _ 0 I-, 0 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of Kern ) PAMELA A. McCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 22nd day of May ,1998 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3846 , passed by the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 20th day of May, 1998 , and entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP. NO. 122-01 AND 122-12 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 691.37 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE KERN RIVER CANAL, WHITE LANE (EXTENDED), BUENA VISTA ROAD AND ALLEN ROAD (EXTENDED) FROM AN A-20A (AGRICULTURE 20-ACRE MINIMUM) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING, R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) AND C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONES. /s/PAMELA A. McCARTHY City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield By: &~b~~ ~ ' DEPUTY City Clerk S:\DOCUMENT~AOPOSTING May 21, 1998