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