Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 100-10 RESOLUTION NO.1 ~J O RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CERTIFYING IT HAS RECEIVED, REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 06-1877 AND CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CEQA IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES, AND MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (BAKERSFIELD COMMONS). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on Thursday, July 1, 2010, on the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC) No. 06-1877 for the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the proposed zone change. Notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, Coffee-Brimhall, LLC c/o Latham & Watkins LLP, representing World Oil Corporation c/o Latham & Watkins LLP, filed an application for a concurrent general plan amendment and zone change for property located generally east and west of Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road, and approximately'/2-mile south of Rosedale Highway, being within the City of Bakersfield, as shown in attached Exhibit A, development of mixed use commercial and residential development on approximately 255 acres, more specifically stated as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 06-1877: A request to amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element to change the existing land use designations from GC (General Commercial), LI (Light Industrial), HI (Heavy Industrial), LR (Low Density Residential), PS (Public and Private Schools), and OS-P (Parks and Recreation Facilities), to GC (General Commercial), MUC (Mixed-Use Commercial), and HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on approximately 236 acres of the 255-acre project site. The project area also includes 19 acres of vacant land which has an existing land use designation of LR and will not be affected by the general plan amendment proposal; and Concurrent Zone Change No. 06-1877: A concurrent zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling), C-2 (Regional Commercial), OS (Open Space), M-1 (Light Manufacturing), and M-2 (General Manufacturing) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development), C- C/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development), and C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) on approximately 236 acres of the 255-acre project site. The project area also includes 19 acres of vacant land which has an existing R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone, and will not be affected by the zone change proposal; and 11 ~AKF9 o F- m v ORIGINAL WHEREAS, for the above-described project, it was determined that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, an EIR was required for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield retained the professional consulting services of Christopher A. Joseph and Associates (CAJA) to prepare the Initial Study, Environmental Impact Report and related documents; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 6, 2007 for a 30 day review period in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, a public scoping hearing was held on April 24, 2007 to receive input from the public and agencies on the Initial Study and scope of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated to interested parties and agencies and a notice of availability was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and all those who requested notification at the Planning Commission public hearing(s) or requested special notice from the Development Services Department, February 16, 2010 to start the 45 day review period to end on April, 1, 2010, in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2007041043) on February 16, 2010 to start the 45 day review period to end on April, 1, 2010 in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, held a public hearing on Thursday, March 18, 2010 on the adequacy of the Draft El R; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2010, the Final EIR was completed and was provided to commenting parties and agencies; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing held Thursday, July 1., 2010, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project includes the following: 1. The Notice of Preparation, Draft Environmental Impact Report, and Final Environmental Impact Report; 2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, and minutes of meetings and other documents prepared by the consultant relating to the project; 3. All testimony, documents and evidence presented to the City by consultants working with the City relating to the project; o' a~KF9(P Page 2 of 7 , T ORIGINAL 4. The proceedings before the Planning Commission relating to the project, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, based on comments received prior to and at the July 1, 2010, Planning Commission hearing and based on responses to those comments, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 27-10 on July 1, 2010, recommending certification of the Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 06-1877 and this Council has fully considered and concurs with the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 27-10 and as restated herein: 1. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and 2. The Final EIR for GPA/ZC 06-1877 was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132; and 3. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the Planning Commission considered the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy" of an EIR: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information, which enables them to make a decision, which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure; and 4. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15151 and 15090, the Final EIR was considered for adequacy, completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure and has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and 5. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project where feasible which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Final EIR; and 6. The Final EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, each of which has been rejected as infeasible due to specific considerations in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, as supported by the substantial evidence contained in the Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures in Exhibit B; and IgPKF9 ~ m Page 3 of 7 Z (ORIGINAL 7. Attached Exhibit B containing the Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures are appropriate and incorporated into the project; and 8. Attached Exhibit C containing the Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable cumulative traffic and noise impacts are appropriate and incorporated into the project; and 9. Attached Exhibit D containing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is incorporated into the project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15151 and 15090, the Final EIR was considered for adequacy, completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure and has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR for GPA/ZC No. 06-1877 was prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following: 1. The Draft EIR; 2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; 3. A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; 4. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and associated errata to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the lead agency (City of Bakersfield) shall certify that: 1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and 2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and 3. The Final EIR includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15093 relative to cumulative traffic and noise impacts, to be adopted if the project were approved; and o~~~KF9 Fn r- Page 4 of 7 ~r)RIGINAL WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern were recently served with a lawsuit by the local Home Builders Association of Kern County seeking, among other things, a court determination that the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) adopted jointly by the City and County be declared invalid and void (RTIF Lawsuit); and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield has notified the applicant Coffee-Brimhall, LLC c/o Latham & Watkins LLP, representing World Oil Corporation c/o Latham & Watkins LLP, of the following due to the RTIF Lawsuit: 1. The applicant is proceeding at its own risk; and 2. That the applicant and property owner acknowledge their duty to defend and indemnify the City of Bakersfield as required under the Bakersfield Municipal Code and conditions of approval if the City is challenged; and 3. That the City reserves the right, if a project is subject to a lawsuit, to request a continuance/delay of the adjudication of such lawsuit until resolution of the RTIF Lawsuit; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 11, 2010, to consider the Planning Commission Resolution No. 27-10; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND FOUND BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: 1. The City Council hereby certifies that it has received, reviewed, evaluated and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for GPA/ZC No. 06- 1877. 2. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR for GPA/ZC No. 06-1877. 3. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein by reference are true and correct and constitute the Findings of the City Council in this matter. 4. That all required notices have been given. 5. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 6. The Final EIR has been reviewed by the City Council of the Lead Agency and the findings contained therein reflect the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. 7. All of the foregoing findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings before the Planning Commission, which is maintained by the City's Planning Director in the Planning Department's offices at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, and of the proceedings before the City Council, which is maintained by the City Clerk in the City Clerk's offices at 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. ~K499 s ' m Page 5 of 7 p ,)RiGINAL 8. The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to the provision of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. 000-------- o~PK~9J' T y m r Page 6 of 7~F~GWA HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on August 11, 2010 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER CARSC N, A. WEIR COUCH HANSON SULLIVAN RIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER V'C`1M ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER BSE COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTA GAFFORD, C CITY CLERK and Ex Offi io Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AUG 1 1 2010 HARVEY L. HALL MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney Byz EXHIBIT A General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Other Location Maps B Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation Measures C Statement of Overriding Considerations D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program KS - S:\GPAs\GPA 3rd 2009\06-1877 (Bakersfield Common EIR)\CC\CC FEIR.doc s o~OPK~y~ Page 7 of 7 c ORIG;NAI Exhibit A General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Other Location Maps ~`bPKF9 m ~pRiGINALL 1 t P w JIIIIIIV • sal e'. ~ ~ ` -.,K- ~ .wc. Wk. ' Oil. 1r a Ty + = ago rig Nl~ 0 1•r7 Yr Wusp s° 1 • ...ry .,,.,i ,s ! ins`` u ~ a 14 j, J 4 a- ' ~ , ~ . ~ 1 x~, " ; I~ +y r . Orr; Qy n. , f i i • 1 Exhibit B Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation Measures NK69q } m r ~ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield June 8, 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. INTRODUCTION These Findings of Fact have been prepared for the proposed Bakersfield Commons Project (General Plan Amendment/Zone Change [GPA/ZC] 06-1877) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043), herein referred to as "Project" or "proposed Project." An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR in its entirety is comprised of the February 2010 Draft EIR and the June 2010 Final EIR. The EIR was subject to the review and approval by the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division (City). These Findings of Fact have been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. The State of California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require a public agency, prior to approving a project, to identify significant impacts of the project and make one or more of three allowable findings for each of the significant impacts: • The first allowable finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a) (1)) • The second allowable finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a) (2) ) • The third allowable finding is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091 (a) (3) ) The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions of the environmental impacts that are found to be significant in the Final EIR for the Project as fully set forth therein. Although Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require findings to address environmental impacts that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings would nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR for the purpose of better understanding the full environmental scope of the Project. For each of the significant impacts associated with the Project, either before or after mitigation, the following sections are provided: a) Findings - One or more of three specific findings in direct response to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. b) Mitigation Measures - Identified mitigation measures or actions that are required as part of the Project (numbering of the mitigation measures corresponds to the Draft EIR and the Errata section of the Final EIR). c) Facts Supporting Findings - A summary of the reasons for the finding(s). II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location 8gAKF9 r Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 1 of 84 JnRIGINA(, CEQA Findinas of Fact and Statement of Overridina Considerations The 255-acre Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (City), Kern County, California. The site is east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway. Regional access to the Project site is provided via State Route 99 (SR-99) and State Highway 58 (Rosedale Highway), located approximately 2.4 miles to the east and 0.5 mile to the north, respectively. The Project site can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Gosford topographic quadrangle map Township 29 South, Range 27 East, Mt. Diablo Base (MDB) and Meridian in the southern half of Section 29 and the western half of Section 28 as well as the Oildale topographic quadrangle map Township 29 South, Range 27 East, MDB and Meridian in the western half of Section 28. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) for the Project site are 368-020-30, 32, 33, 34, and 35; 368-040-01, 02, 12, and 13; and 368-070-01 and 02. Access to the Project site is provided primarily via Coffee Road (an arterial alignment) which bisects the property, and Brimhall Road (a collector alignment) along the Project's south boundary. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway is adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site and bisects the eastern portion of the site. The Kern River is located approximately one half mile south of the Project site. Approximately 200 feet of the Project site is bordered on the west by unincorporated Kern County land. The Project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the City. Project Site History The Project site, approximately 255 acres, was historically occupied by native rangeland until at least 1947. Farm related structures were noted at the site since until at least 1915. An oil refinery facility (Sunland Oil Refinery) was located on the portion of the site located east of Coffee Road by at least 1946, and possibly as early as 1937. The Sunland Oil Refinery facility expanded from its original location southeast of the intersection of Coffee Road and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, incorporating areas north of the BNSF railroad tracks and west of Coffee Road. The Sunland Oil Refinery ceased operations by the mid 1990s, with the demolition of most above ground features. Existing Conditions The Project site has existing uses which include a trucking company (Pan Pacific Petroleum [Pan]) and office uses currently occupied by ConocoPhillips. Pan is located east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway within an approximately six-acre portion of the Project site. Pan's operations include an approximately 1,400-square-foot office building, truck repair and maintenance facility and parking area for its trucks. ConocoPhillips, located in the northeast corner of the Project site east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF Railway, operates out of an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces. Additionally, the Site is occupied with a former refinery and associated facilities, petroleum hydrocarbon remediation area, City water retention areas, transmission towers and two active oil wells. Proposed Development The proposed Project involves a 255-acre mixed-use development consisting of mixed- use commercial (proposed lifestyle center), general commercial (proposed office development), low and high density residential uses as further described in detail in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. The proposed Project is intended to create a pedestrian-oriented community with retail, theater, office, and residential uses. The Project proposes the development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses, comprising a total of 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses. In addition, the Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units consisting of 80 single- family detached units and 345 multi-family units. The Applicant has identified retail uses o~~AK~r9 s~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 2 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -Dlr,INAL to include an urban, upscale lifestyle retail center west of Coffee Road and community- serving retail east of Coffee Road. Lifestyle centers cater to the retail needs and lifestyle pursuits of consumers in the market area, and typically have an open-air configuration, landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas, and include at least 50,000 square feet of retail space occupied by upscale national chain specialty stores in addition to local independent specialty stores. Lifestyle centers typically contain one or more restaurants, a multiplex cinema, and reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. The Project would also provide a network of landscaped bike trails and pedestrian walkways, as appropriate, to link adjoining neighborhoods. Project construction is proposed to occur in three phases that will commence after Project approval and continue until Project buildout. The following three phases are proposed: 1. Phase I development in 2015 would consist of approximately 200,000 square feet of office uses and 800,000 square feet of retail and theater uses ready for occupancy; II. Phase II development, anticipated to be complete between 2025 and 2035, would consist of an additional 200,000 square feet of office uses and 600,000 square feet of retail uses ready for occupancy; and III. Phase III development would achieve project completion at full buildout in 2035 would consist of the completion of approximately 200,000 square feet of office uses and development of the 345 multi-family and 80 single-family residential units. The existing uses on site associated with Pan Pacific Petroleum and ConocoPhillips would be demolished as part of the Project. The existing on-site active oil wells, petroleum hydrocarbon remediation facilities, City water retention areas, and transmission towers would remain on site. The City is the Lead Agency for purposes of complying with CEQA and is the primary public agency responsible for approving projects on these properties. However, the Draft EIR may be used by various governmental decision-makers for discretionary permits and actions that are necessary or may be requested in connection with the Project, as well as any other discretionary permits and actions that may be identified during the environmental review and entitlement process. The primary discretionary action necessary for the Project is approval of the Bakersfield Commons Project. Approvals required for the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: • General Plan Amendments; • Zone Change approvals; • Development Agreement; • Subdivision approvals; • Site Plan Review and/or Planned Commercial Development and Planned Unit Development approvals; • Community Facilities and/or Assessment District approvals; • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) review/approvals regarding railroad crossings and potential electrical substation; • Encroachment Permits (BNSF Railway, City of Bakersfield, and others as applicable); • Grading and Building Permits; and • Comprehensive Sign Plan. Overall, the Project's conceptual site plan reflects policies set forth in the City's Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which addresses promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. The proposed o~ 6AKF~ N Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 3 of 84 ; r- CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~~ORIGINALL Project's mix of uses presents a "main street" concept designed to generate activity traditionally associated with a "main street". Retail functions would be developed to promote a desirable urban scale and character that encourages social, cultural, recreational, and civic interaction within the community. III. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 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 Bakersfield Commons Project and the public record. The Lead Agency hereby makes the findings in Sections IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI and Exhibit B of this document regarding the significant effects of the Project pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-makers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for the Bakersfield Commons Project and public records, finds that changes or alterations to the Project will avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts. These changes or alteration are related to the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in this document. The custodian of records for all materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which approval of the Project and certification of the EIR are based is the City Clerk. The documents are available at the City Offices located at 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City of Bakersfield, as Lead Agency and decision-makers, finds that except for the significant and unmitigable impacts on Transportation/Traffic (intersection impacts, and street segment impacts), Air Quality (project odor impacts) and Noise (operational impacts), all effects of the Project on the environment are hereby found to be not significant after mitigation. Cumulative impacts of the Project in conjunction with other related approved, proposed, or projects currently under construction have been addressed where applicable, and with the exception of Transportation/Traffic (intersection impacts, and street segment impacts) and Noise (operational impacts) would not be significant after mitigation. Because significant and unmitigable impacts may occur with future development in conjunction with implementation of the Bakersfield Commons Project the Lead Agency is required to issue a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15903 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: 1. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a), as amended, the City, as the Lead Agency for the Project, prepared a preliminary Initial Study that concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. 2. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project to the State Clearinghouse, and interested agencies and persons on April 6, 2007 for a 30-day review period. 3. During the circulation period for the NOP, the City advertised and conducted a public scoping meeting was on April 24, 2007. Accordingly, comments received o`` 6AKF,~~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 4 of 84 v CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL, on the NOP and comments received at the public scoping meeting were both considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. 4. A Draft EIR was prepared, which analyzed project-related impacts related to the following environmental issue areas: Land Use Planning, Urban Decay, Transportation/Traffic, Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services ( including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation), and Utilities (including Wastewater, Water, Solid Waste, Electricity, and Natural Gas). Growth-inducing impacts, project alternatives and cumulative effects were also analyzed in the Draft EIR. 5. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals for a 45-day public review period from February 16, 2010 through April 1, 2010. An Adequacy Hearing was held before the Planning Commission on March 18, 2010 to gather public comments on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was also circulated to state agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The NOA was published in The Bakersfield Californian and copies of the Draft EIR were available for review at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department - Planning Division, Beale Library, Southwest Library, and via internet at http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/weblink7/Browse.aspx?startid=602140. Upon the close of the public review period, written responses were prepared to comments received on the Draft EIR, and those comments and responses, together with a list of persons commenting, were included within a Final EIR prepared pursuant to said statutes and guidelines for the Project. 6. The Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed Project. The Final EIR for the Project was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State and Agency CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR incorporated the Draft EIR by reference and included additions and corrections and written responses to the comments made on the Draft EIR during the review period. Responses were sent to all public agencies that made comments on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). In addition, all individuals that commented on the Draft EIR also received a copy of the Final EIR. The Final EIR was also made available for review on the City's website. Notices regarding availability of the Final EIR were sent to those within a 300-foot radius of the Project site as well as individuals that attended the scoping meeting and provided comments during the NOP comment period. The Final EIR was certified as complete by the City as the CEQA Lead Agency in July 2010. 7. The City finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the Project, that the Draft EIR which was circulated for public review reflected its independent judgment and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 8. The City finds that the EIR provides objective information to assist the decision- makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to AK,6 J9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 5 of 84- m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o ORIGINAL. submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period. 9. Having reviewed the information contained in the EIR and in the administrative record as well as the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City finds that there is no new significant information in the Final EIR and finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 10. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a Project to adopt an Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the changes to the Project which it has adopted or made a condition of Project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. The mitigation measures included in the EIR as certified by the City and included in the MMRP as adopted by the City serves that function. The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City in connection with the approval of the Project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such measures during implementation of the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the MMRP. 11. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project. 12. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter. 13. The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting findings for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the EIR as comprising the Project. It is contemplated that there may be a variety of actions undertaken by other State and local agencies (who might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA). Because the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, the EIR is intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other State and local agencies to carry out the Project. 14. The EIR is a Project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the Project. A Project EIR examines the environmental effects of a specific Project. The EIR serves as the primary environmental compliance document for entitlement decisions regarding the Project by the City of Los Angeles and the other regulatory jurisdictions. V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT IN THE INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION The City prepared an Initial Study dated April 2007 for the Project, which determined that the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts to Agricultural Resources; Land Use; Transportation/Traffic; Aesthetics; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Cultural Resources; Noise; and Population and Housing. Therefore, these issue areas were not examined in detail in the EIR. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in these issue areas is summarized below. o`~ OAKF,9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 6 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 nRIGINAL Agricultural Resources. Would the project. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? With the exception of approximately six acres to the east of Coffee Road currently utilized by the Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc. as a truck yard and a portion of the northeast corner of the Project site, currently leased by ConocoPhillips, the Project site is predominantly vacant. The site does not support any agricultural resources or agricultural activities. The land is currently zoned for residential, light and general manufacturing, and open space. Urban development currently exists in all directions of the surrounding vicinity. No agricultural resources have been mapped under the cited agricultural programs and the site is not listed on the Kern County Agricultural Preserve Map. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? The Project site is zoned for a variety of land uses, including M-1 (light manufacturing), M-2 (general manufacturing), C-2 (commercial), R-1 (one family dwelling), and OS (open space). However, no agricultural zoning is present on the site or in the surrounding area, and no nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act.' Therefore, the Project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The Project site does not support agricultural resources and is not zoned for agricultural uses. Furthermore, no agriculturally related activities exist today on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not result in the conversion of existing farmland to non- agricultural uses. Land Use. Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Adjacent land uses include residential uses to the south and west and commercial uses to the east and southeast. Industrial land uses are also present in the Project vicinity. A PG&E power plant is located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF railroad tracks, and the Flying J (formerly the Shell Oil) refinery is located to the east. The transformation of the site from an underutilized light industrial site to an urban development, consisting of a mix of commercial, light industrial, residential, and open space uses, would be consistent and compatible with the established land use patterns in the area. No residential communities would be displaced by Project-related activities, nor would the physical arrangement of the surrounding residential communities be modified or divided. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a public or private airport. The nearest airport, the Meadows Field Airport, is located approximately 5.25 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project does not propose any uses that would result in a notable increase in air traffic levels or would induce a change in air traffic location. Aesthetics. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 16 PKF9 Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Kern County Williamson Act Lands Map, O11 2005, available online at ftp:1/ftp. consrv. ca.gov/pub/d lrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDF/Kern Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 7 of 84 0 ORIGINAL CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Project site does not contain any historical resources as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines since there are no extant buildings, structures, objects, or sites with any historical associations or significance necessary for California Register eligibility. There is the potential that unrelated properties within the Project vicinity could potentially be considered as a historical resource; however, development of the proposed Project would not pose impacts to such off-site properties. Geology and Soils. Would the project. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? The site and the surrounding area are essentially flat. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR, seismically induced landslides are primarily limited to the steeper slopes in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon floodplain. The Project site is not located within any of these areas. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, no impact relating to soil failure from septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Kern County, California Community-Panel Number 060075-1005-B, the Project site is not located within a designated 100-year flood plain. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No large water bodies with the potential to experience seiche effects (e.g., reservoirs, lakes) exist in proximity to the proposed Project site. The Project site is located in the central portion of California and is not subject to inundation from a tsunami. Additionally, the site and surrounding area are relatively flat and not subject to inundation by a mudflow. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest schools to the Project site are Greenacres School, located approximately 0.30 mile to the northwest, and Columbia Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.34 mile to the south. No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. The nearest airport is Meadows Field, which is located approximately 5.25 miles southeast of the Project site. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Project site is not located in a designated Hazardous Fire Area by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County Fire Departments. The Project site does not contain wildland features and is not located adjacent to any wildland areas. ~gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 8 of 84- R, r CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 '~RIGINAL~ Cultural Resources. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? The Project site does not contain any historical resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines since there are no extant buildings, structures, objects, or sites with any historical associations or significance necessary for California Register eligibility. There is the potential that unrelated properties within the Project vicinity could potentially be considered as a historical resource; however, development of the proposed Project would not pose impacts to such off-site properties. Therefore, no impacts on a historical resource would occur, and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not required. Noise. Would the project: Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project site is not within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is Meadows Field, which is located approximately 5.25 miles northeast of the Project site. In addition, the Bakersfield Municipal Airport is located 6.6 miles southeast of the Project site. Population and Housing. Would the project: Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project site currently does not support housing or a residential population. As such, development of the Project would not displace existing housing or people. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PRIOR TO MITIGATION The City prepared an Initial Study for the Project, that indicated issues that should be addressed further in an EIR. Issues that were determined by the City to require further analysis in an EIR included: Land Use, Urban Decay, Transportation/Traffic, Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources; Air Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services (including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation) and Utilities (including Wastewater, Water, Solid Waste, Electricity, and Natural Gas). The following impact areas were concluded by the EIR to be less than significant prior to mitigation. LAND USE PLANNING 1. Consistency with Regional Plans Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with area-wide plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan. In addition, the Project design encourages people to live and work in the same area, thereby, minimizing sprawl and reducing traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, air pollution and noise levels. Regional land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project were reviewed and the Project is concluded to be consistent with the following regional plans: a) Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP): The AQAP anticipated growth of the population and economy within the Basin, predicting that the employment base in Kern County would increase along with a projected 2.2 percent annual population increase. Relative to this growth, the Kern County General Plan identified specific policies requiring local agency interaction, including the City of Bakersfield, with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the Kern County Air Pollution Control District toward air quality attainment with federal, State, and local standards. Therefore, continued T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 9 of 84 m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 ORIGINAIo growth within the County, such as that taking place throughout the City of Bakersfield (e.g., northwest, peripheral areas) was anticipated in the preparation of the AQAP. b) Destination 2030, Kern County's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): The proposed Project would implement roadway improvements, including roadway widening, intersection improvements and installation of traffic signals, on a fair-share basis. Of particular importance with regard to the proposed Project is the proposed Westside Parkway which would provide an east-west corridor beginning at Stockdale Highway near Heath Road, connecting to the Truxtun Avenue/Oak Street area near State Route 99. Intermediate access connections would be provided through interchanges at Allen Road, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road and Mohawk Street. Sound walls would be constructed where required to mitigate noise impacts adjacent to residential areas. The Westside Parkway is also planned to be heavily landscaped with many trees. These improvements would be consistent with the policies and planned projects of the RTP. c) Kern County's Solid Waste Management Plan: Solid waste disposal for the proposed Project would occur in accordance with Kern County's Solid Waste Management Plan. During construction, the Contractor would separate all Project construction debris and construction-related debris into recyclable and non-recyclable items. All recyclable debris would be transported to appropriate recycling facilities so as to reduce waste disposed of at County landfills. Additionally, recyclable materials and materials consistent with the waste- reducing goals of the City of Bakersfield would be used in all aspects of construction, when possible. The Kern County Waste Management Department and the City of Bakersfield anticipate that the Bena landfill has the capacity to serve the proposed Project in the long term as solid waste generation at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the daily available capacity of the Bena landfill. 2. Consistency with City of Bakersfield Plans Facts Supporting _Fin! ijM As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with local-level plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan. The proposed General Plan amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a mix of uses as described in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. Local-level land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project were reviewed and the Project is concluded to be consistent with the following plans: a) Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan: The proposed Project would be consistent with Bikeway Master Plan policies to (1) require new subdivisions to provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets, (2) encourage new subdivisions to provide internal bike paths where feasible and where natural features make bike paths desirable, and (3) construct bike lanes in conjunction with all street improvement projects that coincide with the Bikeway Master Plan. The proposed Project would provide a network of bike trails and lanes, as well as bike racks, which are separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, where feasible. The bike trails would be designed to link with existing and future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the proposed Project. Bike lanes would be implemented as determined along the appropriate roadways when full improvements are completed. b) Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP): Overall, Project implementation would not conflict with the land use plan, goals and strategies in the MBGP. The identified MBGP goals include accommodating new development, which is o ~AKF9 X P Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 10 of 84 > R, CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~r1RlGltti'AL compatible with and complements existing land uses and the establishment of a built environment, which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. New development would be focused at five new mixed use activity centers, including the northwest centers, where the proposed Project is located. The MBGP encourages the following goals specific to the northwest centers in the City of Bakersfield: (a) focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body; and, b) exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity. This EIR meets the intent of these goals for the northwest area of the City. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Map designates the Project site with the following designations: HI (Heavy Industrial), LI (Light Industrial), GC (General Commercial), LR (Low-Density Residential), OS-P (Parks and Recreational Facilities), and PS (Public and Private School). The area of the Project site located east of Coffee Road is designated LI and HI. Within the area of the Project site located west of Coffee Road, the southwest portion is designated LR, with a small area in the center designated OS-P and PS. The northern portion of the Project site and the portion adjacent to Coffee Road are designated as Ll. A small portion of the southeast corner of the Project site is designated GC. Approximately 16 acres of the transmission corridor is designated OS-P, while the remaining four acres (approximate) are designated as LI. The Project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment, which proposes to reclassify approximately 71 acres of the site to GC (General Commercial), 141 acres to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), and 24 acres to HMR (High-Medium Density Residential) land uses. Under the proposed Project plan, the westernmost 19 acres of the Project site would be developed in accordance with the existing LR (Low-Density Residential) designation. The 20-acre transmission corridor would be reclassified as MUC from the existing designations of OS-P and Ll. As the site is not proposed for a neighborhood school facility, the Public and Private Schools (PS) designation is no longer applicable and that acreage has been incorporated into the MUC area. The General Plan Amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a mix of uses on the periphery of urban areas as described in the Land Use element of the City's General Plan. The proposed land use designations would provide needed flexibility to respond to changing market needs. The analysis contained in Table IV.A-3, Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, concludes that there would be no significant consistency impacts of the proposed Project associated with the MBGP goals and policies. Further, less than significant impacts would result in the listed issue areas as the Project was determined to be consistent with additional MBGP policies as follows: • Transportation/Traffic: Table IV.C-24, Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Polices, in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic; • Light and Glare: Table IV.D-l, Proposed Project Consistency with Relevant MBGP Goals and Policies Related to Light and Glare, in Section IV.D, Aesthetics; • Geology and Soils: Table IV.E-4, Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies, in Section IV.E, Geology and Soils; ~gAKF~ O & Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 11 of 84 u O CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Table IV.G-1, Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies, in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Air Quality: Table IV.K-15, Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the City of Bakersfield General Plan Conservation Element, in Section IV.K, Air Quality; • Wastewater: Table IV.0-2, Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP, in Section IV.O, Utilities; • Water Supply: Table IV.0-10, Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP, in Section IV.O, Utilities; and • Solid Waste: Table IV.0-13, Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP, in Section IV.O, Utilities. 3. Proposed Land Use Designations and Zoning - On Site Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the MBGP, which would reclassify approximately 216 acres from the existing General Commercial, Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Open Space designations to approximately 71 acres of General Commercial, 121 acres of Mixed Use Commercial, and 24 acres of High-Medium Density Residential land uses. The transmission corridor would be reclassified as MUC from the existing designations of OS-P and Ll. As the site is not proposed for a neighborhood school facility, the Public and Private Schools (PS) designation is no longer applicable and that acreage is proposed for incorporation into the Mixed Use Commercial designation. The proposed Project proposes zone changes concurrent with the General Plan Amendment to reclassify 216 acres currently zoned C-2, M-1, and M-2 to 71 acres C-2 (Regional Commercial), 121 acres C-C (Commercial Center), and 24 acres R-3 (Multiple-Family Dwelling). The transmission corridor is proposed to be zoned C-C. Under the proposed Project, the westernmost 19 acres of the proposed Project site would be developed in accordance with the existing LR (Low-Density Residential) and R-1 zoning designation. Although the proposed Project would alter current conditions on the site, the development would be compatible in density and character with existing residential uses to the west and south, as well as existing commercial uses to the east, south and southeast. Additionally, as part of the development, environmental, and design review processes, the City conducts various discretionary entitlement procedures which serve to implement the Land Use Element goals and policies, insuring land use compatibility. The City of Bakersfield maintains an on-going program of code enforcement to ensure continued compliance with applicable codes and conditions of project approvals. 4. Proposed Land Use and Zoning -Surrounding Areas Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the Project proposes zone changes concurrent with the General Plan Amendment to reclassify portions of the site from C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone), M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-2 (General Manufacturing) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial Zone/Planned Commercial Development) and C-C/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development) zones. The Project also proposes zone changes from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) to R- 3/PUD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Unit Development). The C-C zone is intended for those areas in the City that are planned for mixed use development centers consisting of commercial and residential uses. Uses permitted in the C-C Zone include but are not limited to those uses permitted in the C-2 Zone, as well as apartments, hotels, transit station, parking garage or surface lot; multiple-family dwelling; and single-family dwelling provided it is attached to and accessory to a commercial use. Additionally, mixed combinations of commercial and residential uses $NKF 9 sP" Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 12 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JgRIGINAL are permitted in the C-C Zone. Uses permitted in the R-3 zone include multiple family dwellings and apartment houses, accessory buildings or structures, and all uses permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones. The proposed Project is intended to create a community and pedestrian-oriented environment with retail, theater, office, and residential uses; it is anticipated that on-site retail uses could include an urban, upscale lifestyle retail center west of Coffee Road and community-serving retail east of Coffee Road. The proposed Project would incorporate architectural design features through articulation, differentiating upper floors from ground floors, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas, parks and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, landscape and planted areas would be evenly distributed throughout surface parking areas. Under the proposed Project zone classifications, no new industrial uses would be permitted and the proposed Project does not include any industrial uses. With applicant proposed Project Design Features, which would limit heights, the proposed Project would be compatible with existing land uses in regards to height, setback, design, and scale. The transformation of the site from a generally vacant and underutilized light industrial site to an urban development, consisting of a mix of commercial, residential, and open space uses, would be consistent and compatible with the established land use patterns in the area. The proposed Project's land use plan sets forth an arrangement of land uses that recognizes and would be compatible with adjacent and nearby off-site uses, particularly the existing residential areas to the south and west of the site. As proposed, the Project's commercial uses would be located towards the eastern and central portions of the proposed Project site and in so doing take advantage of the proposed Project site's frontages on Coffee and Brimhall Roads. Moving westward across the Project site, the proposed on-site land use patterns would then transition to multi-family residential uses, before reaching the western portion of the Project site wherein single- family residential uses are proposed. This arrangement of on-site land uses would create an appropriate and beneficial interface between the proposed Project uses and existing residential uses and existing and planned commercial uses, along Brimhall Road. The Project's residential uses would be located across from the off-site residential uses to the south and west, with the on-site single-family residential uses providing an appropriate interface with the single-family residential uses located to the west of the Project site. 5. Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project in conjunction with the cumulative development in the northwest Bakersfield area would convert existing vacant and underutilized property to accommodate new development that provides a full mix of uses, compatible with the natural environs and complementary to existing land uses. The proposed Project would implement important local and regional goals and policies for the northwest Bakersfield area, which would achieve both short- and long-term planning goals and objectives. Likewise, future residential and commercial development associated with the cumulative development would support opportunities for revitalization and managed growth as encouraged by the MBGP goals and objectives. Such development would be consistent with Kern Council of Governments policies, and other regional policies for promoting housing options and urban centers which capitalize on the area's setting and location as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Furthermore, all cumulative development in the City of Bakersfield would be subject to the same local development standards as the o~~'AKF9 T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 13 of 84 m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~~RIGINAL~ proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not combine with any of the cumulative development to create a cumulatively significant land use impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. URBAN DECAY Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, CEQA itself does not provide any specific direction as to what should be considered a significant urban decay impact. However, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield indicated that a significant adverse physical change in the environment resulting from economic impacts or a proposed retail project, or "urban decay," is characterized by a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies ultimately destroying neighborhoods. Based on the direction of the Court of Appeal, the City of Bakersfield (City) has determined that the Project would have a significant impact if: • The development of the proposed Project would result in a diversion of sales from existing retailers within the Bakersfield market area that is severe enough to lead to business closures, and in turn, the resulting business closures are significant enough in scale to result in long-term vacancies that affect the viability of existing shopping centers or districts. Accordingly, an economic analysis was prepared assessing the Project's potential to induce physical change as a result of its economic or social effects. The complete economic analysis, Bakersfield Commons Economic Impact Analysis, by CBRE Consulting dated July 2009, was included as Appendix D, Economic Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. Further, to address these concerns regarding the current economic conditions pursuant to the economic recession beginning in December 2007, an April 2010 Addendum to the Bakersfield Commons Economic Impact Analysis was prepared. The Project on its own is not anticipated to result in sales impacts on existing stores, similar to the finding in the July 2009 urban decay study. There remains sufficient new demand to absorb the sales estimated to be diverted away from existing retailers after sales are accounted for at the Project. However, the estimated cumulative impacts are anticipated to increase by about 44 percent for Phase I. The increase for Phase II is more difficult to estimate, although the Addendum's long-term supply and demand analysis suggests that if all cumulative retail projects are built, the surplus of retail space in the Lifestyle market area will be greater. The April 2010 Addendum concludes, as did the July 2009 study, that the analytically estimated oversupply of retail space will not be as high as estimated. These reasons include the aggressive definition of planned projects, the likelihood that hurdles may be too steep for some planned project development, that project delivery is market-driven, and the historical market strength of the Bakersfield retail market and its ability to self correct during non-recessionary economic periods. A review of current and projected economic conditions indicates that beginning 2007, unemployment in the City has been rising steadily, reaching 14.9 percent at year-end 2009. Some of this increase is attributable to the fact that job growth has not kept pace with population growth, since the City's population base has experienced growth annually for many years, even since the recession starting December 2007. While unemployment is anticipated to rise through 2010, projections indicate that by 2013, well in advance of the Phase I opening of the Project, employment will exceed the City's prior high level of employment achieved in 2007. Thus, while indicators might suggest poorer economic performance, population growth and ultimately employment growth are both projected to occur, spurring demand for retail. In addition, foreclosure rates are anticipated to peak in the first quarter (Q1) of 2010, with the rate declining thereafter. o~~AKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 14 of 84 0 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations nRIGINAI While retail vacancy has been on the rise in the City, the market has historically been characterized by strong fundamentals. Much of the vacancy is attributable to regional or national retailer bankruptcies, such as Mervyn's, Gottschalk's, and Linens 'N Things, and is not directly related to economic or demographic trends in the City. While new vacancies have recently risen in the City, other vacancies are being occupied. Between May 2009 and Q1 2010, ten vacancies distributed among 30 shopping centers noted in the July 2009 study during Project-related field visits were leased. In addition, new stores have opened, indicating continued vibrancy in the retail market despite distressed economic times. The April 2010 Addendum concludes that that none of the more current data changes or invalidate the findings of no urban decay associated with the Project, either individually or cumulatively, concluded in the July 2009 urban decay analysis. The Bakersfield retail market continues to be characterized by strong fundamentals, and even in this challenging time new retailers are opening or being attracted to the market. With the forecasted improvement of economic indicators, existing retail vacancies are not anticipated to fall into disrepair or otherwise be characterized by indicators of urban decay. Given the long-term development horizon of the Project, it is very unlikely that there will be urban decay resulting from development of the Project, with interim time for the market to stabilize and development expectations to moderate relative to future demand potential. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 1. Freeway Impact Analysis Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the evaluation of Caltrans freeway facilities is governed by the document Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Caltrans, December 2002. This document gives specific criteria for the level of new project traffic that would require a traffic impact report and it spells out the methodology required for that analysis. The proposed Westside Parkway is a freeway facility under Caltrans jurisdiction, which is not part of the Project. To measure the Project's impact on this facility, the significant impact criteria used in this analysis was based on a methodology that has been used by Caltrans for other traffic studies in California. A significant project-related impact would require mitigation if: 1. The facility is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) E or F (volume-to- capacity [V/C] ratio > 0.90) after the addition of project traffic, and 2. The project traffic causes an incremental change in the V/C ratio of greater than 0.01 (1 percent of the capacity of the facility). The proposed development would not be considered to have a regionally significant impact, regardless of the increase in V/C ratio, if the analyzed facility is projected to operate at LOS D or better after the addition of Project traffic. 2. Freeway Mainline Impact Analysis Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the improvements to the SR 99 freeway mainline are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield. These improvements are planned and implemented by the State involving the State Legislature, the California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. The Project adds a maximum of 69 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 141 in the afternoon peak hour to the SR 99 freeway mainline under the full buildout conditions (Phases I, II, & III, year 2035). Based on direction from the City, it was determined that the Project traffic volumes projected to be added to the SR 99 freeway mainline were not significant and thus no analysis of the freeway mainline was considered necessary. However, based on the current Regional Transportation Impact Fees (RTIF) program, two widening improvements (between White Lane and Panama Lane and Olive Drive ~gP, KF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 15 of 84r CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JC s1C;NAL and Golden State Highway) along the SR 99 mainline are currently under consideration. The Project would pay its fair share contribution to these improvements as part of its RTIF contribution. These calculations are included in the RTIF calculations. 3. Roadway Hazards Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the widening and/or other improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment. The proposed Project and associated mitigation measures at intersections are thus not expected to result in design features that would result in an increase in roadway hazards and impacts would be less than significant. 4. Parking Facts Supporting Finding; As described in the EIR, the Project's parking objectives include providing sufficient parking on-site to meet demands generated by the Project and supporting trip and emission reduction goals by providing preferred parking for carpools/vanpools, bicycle racks/showers, and loading/unloading areas for vans and shuttles for the non-residential components of the Project. Code parking requirements for the Project would be developed by applying appropriate requirements from the Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17.58. Most zoning codes' parking requirements are based on individual uses and do not account for the sharing of the parking supply by different uses on the same site. Due to the mixed-use nature of the Project, parking supply would be conducted based on typical weekday and weekend rates used in Shared Parking (Urban Land Institute, 1993) to evaluate the potential parking demands generated by the various uses in combination, taking into consideration variation in demands by time of day and season. Based on the Bakersfield Municipal Code and application of shared parking as appropriate, the Project would provide adequate parking for the proposed land uses, and impacts would be less than significant. 5. Highway Railroad Crossings Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, fourteen of the highway-railroad crossings in the Project study area are currently at-grade. The remaining crossings are either above-grade or below-grade. The City's RTIF program includes improvements such as widening and grade separations at the at-grade crossings where high traffic volumes and safety measures warrant an improvement. The Project would pay its fair share contribution for these improvements as part of the City's RTIF program. 6. Transportation/Traffic Cumulative Construction Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the City and emergency services would be informed of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Project or related projects. Thus, construction activities attributable to the cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed Project, are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no cumulative impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. Overall, the impact on the transportation system from construction activities would be temporary in nature and impacts would be less than significant. AESTHETICS 1. Visual Character Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the transformation of the site from a vacant and underutilized light industrial site to an urban infill development, consisting of ~gA►cF9 a mix of commercial, residential, and open space uses, would implement importan;( O Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 16 of 84 ORIGINAL CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City policy goals and objectives promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. Retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional "main street" to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. As such, the Project would contribute to the installation of an aesthetic identity that is envisioned for the area by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). All development would be visually connected by incorporating buildings, plantings, paving for pedestrians, and other pedestrian treatments and destinations designed around a friendly, walkable urban environment theme by utilizing combinations of landscape, architecture, paseos, gardens, plazas and street plantings. The proposed Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing uses, recognizing building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting, and other design elements similar to compatible commercial and residential development. The proposed residential densities would be compatible with neighboring residential areas. Development onsite would be subject to City design review and Municipal Code requirements. The proposed Project would contribute to the neighborhood character of the West Bakersfield community by providing a contemporary, fresh architectural design with articulated fagades, appropriately scaled to the "main street" design features and pedestrians populating the Project. As such, the proposed Project would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the MBGP, namely those that promote the establishment of new centers, differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character, as the principal focus of development and activity in the City. As such, the proposed Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site, and visual character/quality impacts would be less than significant. The Project will require the City Planning Commission's approval of development plans prior to development. The Planning Commission has the authority to exercise discretion with respect to architectural design, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among other design features. Additionally, subdivision maps would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure that the subdivision design is consistent with the City Subdivision Ordinance and State of California Subdivision Map Act. 2. Aesthetics Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the related projects constitute infill of residential and commercial/retail land uses in an area with compatible surrounding development, in accordance with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) policies for the area. Also like the proposed Project, the related projects' site plans would be subject to the City's design review procedures to ensure consistency with the City's ordinances, policies, and standards related to architectural design, building heights, setback, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among others. Given the City's design reviews, sufficient consideration would be integrated into the cumulative development approval process that would preclude adverse impacts with regard to visual character and light and glare. As the proposed Project unto itself would have less than significant impacts to visual character and light and glare, the additional changes brought about by the cumulative development in conjunction with the proposed Project would yield less than significant cumulative impacts. GEOLOGY/SOILS 1. Fault Rupture Facts SupportingFindina: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active or potentially active faults $P KF cross or are located on the proposed Project site. Therefore, the potential for faukl~ 9T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 17 of RIGINA' CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations related surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and potential Project impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. 2. Ground Shaking Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, during the life of the proposed Project, the site is likely to experience at least one earthquake that may produce potentially damaging ground shaking. However, the applicant would be required to design and construct the proposed Project in conformance with the most recently adopted California Building Code (CBC) design parameters. Conformance with current CBC requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City, would reduce the potential for structures on the proposed Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Thus, potential Project impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant. 3. Subsidence Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the potential for subsidence at the proposed Project site is considered low, and the City actively monitors groundwater extraction to prevent subsidence. Additionally, the proposed Project would comply with the CBC to the extent they are implemented by the City, which are designed to assure safe construction and includes building foundation requirements appropriate to the conditions present at the proposed Project site. Therefore, potential Project impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant. 4. Soil Erosion Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, during construction, grading would expose soil for a limited time, allowing for possible erosion. Although proposed Project development has the potential to result in erosion of soils during site preparation and construction activities, erosion would be reduced by implementation of standard City erosion controls imposed during site preparation and grading activities. Furthermore, the potential for soil erosion during the operation of the proposed Project is relatively low due to the fact that the proposed Project site would be almost entirely paved over and/or landscaped. All grading activities would require grading permits, which would include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. With implementation of the applicable grading and building permit requirements and the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs), potential Project impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less than significant level. 5. Geology/Soils Cumulative Impacts Facts Sul2portina Finding; As described in the EIR, the implementation of future development of the site and surrounding areas could expose more persons and property to potential impacts due to seismic activity. Seismic and geologic significance would be considered on a project-by-project basis. The impacts would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. The cumulative development would also be subject to the goals, policies, and implementation measures identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and would be required to conform to City Ordinances and seismic design requirements of applicable building codes similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, cumulative geology and soil impacts would be less than significant. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Surface Water Hydrology. Storm Water Runoff Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would result in a substantial decrease in pervious surfaces on site from approximately 245 currently o~gAKk Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 18 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations vORIGINAL pervious acres to approximately 10 pervious acres at Project buildout. While the proposed Project would contain Project Design Features, including additional pervious surfaces, that may increase the total amount of pervious surface at the proposed Project site, a conservative assumption of 10 acres of Project-site pervious surface is used to ensure the fullest and most conservative analysis of potential Project impacts. The four proposed retention facilities (including two underground retention facilities) would collect and store all potential Project runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces. Project Design Features such as landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos; gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater system. With implementation of the proposed Project, the amount of storm water runoff leaving the site would be fairly minimal and similar in volume to current conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Surface Water Hydrology: Flooding and Inundation Facts Supporting Finding: The proposed Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. A small portion of the site at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coffee and Brimhall is within the 500-year flood zone designation. No housing is proposed within this zone. The four proposed retention facilities would collect and store all potential Project runoff on site. The amount of runoff leaving the site with included Project Design Features, would remain similar to existing levels and would not contribute to downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and inundation would be less than significant. The proposed Project site is located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In the event of dam failure, serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately six to eight hours after dam failure. The lag time between failure and flooding on site would reduce potential for injury or death from dam failure; however, property damage could occur. With incorporation of Project Design Features to reduce impacts to certain uses (e.g., the proposed theater), in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a dam and Project impacts would be less than significant. 3. Surface Water Quality Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the runoff during construction and operation of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute sediment and roadway contaminants (e.g., oil) to surface water. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal requirements for controlling pollutant impacts to stormwater and urban runoff from construction and operation activities and would therefore not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Additionally, proposed Project Design Features including implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project Design Features, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or o~0AKF9N T Fri Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 19 of 84 v o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and Project impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant. 4. Groundwater Hydrology: Groundwater Recharge Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the proposed Project site. Impervious surfaces reduce the amount of surface water that infiltrates into the soil and recharges groundwater. However, the proposed retention facilities would collect surface water runoff and allow it to percolate into groundwater. Additionally, proposed Project Design Features such as landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater system. As applicable, pavers and other pervious pavements would also be implemented which would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the proposed Project site. With implementation of the proposed Project, including proposed Project Design Features, the amount of water infiltrating into the groundwater system would be similar in volume to current conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and Project impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Further, there is adequate water to serve the City with inclusion of the proposed Project; thus, groundwater supplies would not substantially depleted and Project impacts would be less than significant. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Impacts Facts Sporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the majority of the related projects occur on existing vacant or agricultural land, which currently allow stormwater and irrigation water to percolate into the ground or runoff into drainage sumps and nearby canals. Cumulative development would include extensive hardscape areas that would result in an increase in runoff and a decrease in percolation into groundwater. Each cumulative development project, as part of its design, must also include stormwater drainage systems to capture and discharge waters from each respective site. The land in the vicinity of the proposed Project area is relatively flat and does not drain to surface waters. Thus, the majority of the cumulative development in the area would transmit stormwater into retention/detention facilities that would be developed as part of the respective projects. Storm water facilities would then allow percolation of water back into groundwater aquifers, reducing the impact of increased impervious surfaces. Therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity would be less than significant. Cumulative development would be compliant with the stringent requirements of the CWA, which are implemented by the City and Kern County through the SUSMP and other statewide NPDES requirements. Water quality standards are achieved through the implementation of BMPs during design, construction, and post-construction operations. The proposed Project and cumulative development would be subject to these requirements and cumulative impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Project, each cumulative development would be required to analyze and mitigate impacts associated with a reduction in groundwater recharge in accordance with applicable City requirements. Therefore, cumulative development would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. o~~AKF9..r, Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 20 of 84 } m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~7RIGINAL The majority of cumulative development are located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, each cumulative development would be required to implement mitigation as applicable to reduce the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a dam and impacts would be less than significant. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Construction Impacts: Emergency Procedures Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the local streets adjacent to the proposed Project site would be used for construction traffic; however, construction traffic would conform to all traffic work plan and access standards to allow adequate emergency access. Implementation of traffic work plans and access standards would reduce the potential for the impacts on emergency response during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or on- site emergency response or evacuation plans or a local, state, or federal agency's emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant. 1. Construction Impacts: Hazardous Materials and Waste Facts Supportinq_Findinq; As described in the EIR, the construction activities for the proposed Project would increase the use of typical construction materials, including paints, cleaning materials, and vehicle fuels, which may be hazardous if not properly transported, used, or disposed of. The use of these materials would be short term and would occur in accordance with standard construction practices and manufacturer guidelines. Construction activities would, therefore, not create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and Project impacts would be less than significant. 2. Construction Impacts: Asbestos, LBP, and PCBs Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, there are no structures on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. As such, Project impacts related to asbestos, Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs), Lead Based Paints (LBPs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are anticipated to be less than significant. Due to the age of the existing structures on the proposed Project site, the potential for encountering ACMs, LBP, or PCBs during Project demolition activities exists. As handling and disposal of asbestos, ACM, LBP, and PCBs would be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, construction of the proposed Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release or explosion of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, potential Project impacts associated with asbestos, ACM, LBP, or PCBs would be less than significant. 3. Operational Impacts: Remediation Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, there is no remediation equipment on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road with the exception of some valves. These would be considered a part of the remediation system and would be managed in accordance with the rest of the system as discussed below. Thus, impacts related to remediation are anticipated to be less than significant. Remedial activities are limited to a relatively small portion of the proposed Project Site (approximately six acres) east of Coffee Road. Within this limited area, the remedial equipment can be relocated to accommodate proposed Project structures. The current remedial system has been operational at this location for the past ten years and o11~AKF9J. y - - n Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 21 of 84 v c CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL it has been effective in removing a vast majority of the hydrocarbons at the proposed Project Site. The existing remedial system is a closed system, which ensures that the underground hydrocarbons do not present a health and safety threat to persons or activities on or around the property, have no significant impacts on surface or surrounding uses and do not preclude any future development. The level of hydrocarbon removal from the property has been tapering off in the last six years due to the fact that most of the hydrocarbons have been removed from this site. It is expected that the level of hydrocarbons removed at this site will continue to decrease to a nominal level. In addition, natural attenuation of the hydrocarbon plume in groundwater is occurring beneath and downgradient of the site and it is anticipated that following completion of active remediation at the site, only periodic groundwater monitoring will be required. All remedial actions to address on-site soil and groundwater contamination are anticipated to be complete by 2020, however, conclusion of remediation is at the discretion of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Following completion of remediation activities, facilities associated with remediation, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. With respect to the proposed Project, the existing remediation system can be relocated or modified, if necessary, with oversight from the RWQCB when development on that portion of the proposed Project site is scheduled to occur in order to accommodate future structures. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not interfere with on-site remediation activities and potential Project impacts would be less than significant. 4. Operational Impacts: Hazardous Materials and Waste Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project has the potential to increase the acquisition, use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials on-site. Potentially hazardous materials that would likely be stored and used on the proposed Site in association with proposed Project operation include typical commercial and household cleaning solvents, paints and lacquers, petroleum products, commercial and household pesticides, which, when stored and used in small quantities, would not pose a risk of upset or significant environmental impact. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Through continued compliance with applicable laws, potential Project impacts associated with the routine use, storage, disposal and management of hazardous materials would be less than significant. With implementation of the proposed Project, the Pan and ConocoPhillips facilities would be decommissioned and hazardous waste generating activities on property would decrease. Additionally, the proposed Project would introduce residential and commercial uses to the site that are not anticipated to generate substantial hazardous waste. Therefore, the proposed Project would decrease the demand for hazardous waste landfill capacity and potential Project impacts related to the generation of hazardous waste would be less than significant impact. 5. Operational Impacts: Asbestos, LBP, and PCBs Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the new on-site construction due to the proposed Project would include use of commercially sold construction materials that are not anticipated to increase the occurrence of ACMs, LBP, or PCBs at the proposed Project site. Therefore, operation of the new development proposed at the Project site is not anticipated to expose persons to these materials. There are no existing structures on the portion of the Project site west of Coffee Road. Potential Project impacts with respect associated with ACMs, LBP, and PCBs from ~$NK4,~ o Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 22 of 8r o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations nRICINAL operation of the proposed Project are anticipated to be less than significant. Per applicable regulations, new workers associated with the proposed Project would be protected by worker safety requirements. With existing laws and regulations, operation of the proposed Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, potential Project impacts associated with ACMs, LBP, and PCBs from operation of the proposed Project are anticipated to be less than significant. 6. Electric and Magnetic Fields Facts SupportingFinding: As described in the EIR, the electric fields are produced by the existing power transmission lines in the 330-foot wide right-of-way on the Project site, however, as there is no development proposed within the right-of-way the electric magnetic fields at the perimeter of the right-of-way are anticipated to be nominal. There are existing underground distribution systems in and adjacent to the proposed Project site within the streets and BNSF Railway right-of-way. All future electrical lines would be located underground and would be installed in a manner consistent with current practices. There are no substations currently on-site. If a substation is developed on-site, the equipment would be metal encased and grounded, to ensure no external electric fields emanating from the substation. As a result of the inconclusive findings from research in the area of EMF, a determination of significance to the health effects resulting from exposure to EMF cannot reasonably be made. There are no applicable municipal or regional policies currently in place which attempt to limit EMF exposure. However, the on-site handling of facilities which could potentially emit EMF levels, including the undergrounding of all electric lines within the site, as well as the enclosing of electrical lines associated with the proposed Project, would be in accordance with EMF consensus recommendations, which authorize utility companies to implement no- or low-cost steps to reduce field exposure. Undergrounding or enclosing electrical systems is considered, at this time, to be one of the most feasible actions to reduce EMF exposure levels. In accordance with this information, potential Project impacts relative to the EMF issue are concluded to be less than significant. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Waste Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the each of the cumulative development project's would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools), listed hazardous material sites, aircraft-related hazards, emergency response, and wildland fire hazards. Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, this evaluation would occur on a case-by- case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, each cumulative development would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Mineral Resources 1. Sand and Gravel Resources Facts Supporting Findina: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would preclude the extraction of sand and gravel resources as these activities would not be allowed under the proposed land use and zoning designations. However, it is unlikely that viable economic extraction of these materials would occur in the area of the site given the low potential for high-grade sand and gravel resources. Therefore, potential Project impacts related to sand and gravel resources would be less than significant. 2. Petroleum, Sand and Gravel Resource Cumulative Impacts m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 23 of 84~ o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations r)OGINAI Facts Supportina Finding: As described in the EIR, some of the related projects off-site may also occur within or near existing oil fields and sand and gravel mining operations. However, where these resources have substantial remnant supplies of regional importance, none of the related projects are anticipated to preclude continued extraction or production of these resources. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site, because the site is not delineated as such on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan and impacts would be less than significant. Biological Resources 1. Plants and Vegetation: Protected Trees Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project may remove the approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices at the northernmost portion of the site. However, none of these trees are considered protected trees under the zoning code. Further, the proposed Project would provide abundant trees and landscaping as part of an approved landscape plan. 2. Plants and Vegetation: Special Status Plants Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, although 21 special status plant species were recorded to occur (i.e., the species was reported as being present somewhere in the region, in either the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, or other sources reviewed), or have the potential to occur, in the region, none are expected on-site based on a lack of suitable habitat, highly disturbed conditions, and/or lack of observation during the site surveys. Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts to special status plants. 3. Plants and Vegetation: Sensitive Plant Communities Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, no sensitive plant communities or natural plant communities on the proposed Project site were observed and none are expected to occur on the site because of the disturbed, ruderal and developed condition of the site; therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant communities. 4. Wildlife: Common Wildlife Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the implementation of the proposed Project could result in harm, disturbance, displacement, or loss of some of the common wildlife species residing on-site, particularly the less mobile species such as reptiles or small mammals. These impacts could result during construction activities from physical habitat removal, noise, and other disturbances, or during post-construction operation from increased noise levels, lighting, and domestic animals. Although these impacts would be considered adverse, they would not be considered significant under CEQA as these species are considered common and widespread, particularly in urban and suburban areas. Therefore, potential Project impacts with respect to common wildlife would be less than significant. 5. Wildlife: Wildlife Movement Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project site is not considered a major wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage. Considerable urban development exists around the proposed Project site, particularly along the western and northern boundaries and the majority of the southern and eastern boundaries, such that the remnant habitat on-site has become a virtual island. Although limited wildlife movement may occur between the proposed Project site and areas to the east and south along the Kern River, such movement is likely infrequent and accidental and, therefore, the proposed Project site does not act as a wildlife corridor, movement o~OPKFq~ ~ m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 24 of 84 J o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7RIGINAL pathway, or linkage of note between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. . In addition, the site conditions are heavily disturbed and degraded due to recent and past intensive site uses; no natural habitat exists on-site and it is isolated from other natural habitats in the region. These conditions preclude the use of the site as a native wildlife nursery site. Native wildlife nursery sites are generally located in areas with optimal habitat conditions providing plentiful food and protection from disturbance, facilitating successful rearing of young for a wildlife population over generations. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife migration, movement corridors, or native nursery sites. 6. Jurisdictional Features Facts SupportingFinding: As described in the EIR, no natural water or wetland features are present on the proposed Project site. Although artificially-created basins and sumps are present, these would not be considered jurisdictional as wetlands or "waters of the U.S." by the Corps or as "lakes" by CDFG. However, these features may be considered "waters of the State", such that the removal or placement of material into these basins and sumps may be subject to regulation by the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act. Although these basins and sumps were created to remedy water quality issues, their modification may require permitting through the RWQCB. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Paleontological Resources Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project is located in an area that does not contain rock outcrops or geologic formations likely to harbor significant fossil deposits. As noted, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section indicated that they do not have any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the project boundaries, nor do we have any fossil vertebrate localities anywhere nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur at the surface in the proposed project area." Thus, the area is considered to be of low to zero sensitivity, and potential Project impacts with respect to paleontology resources are concluded to be less than significant. 2. Cultural Resource Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potential impacts resulting from the cumulative development would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Each related project would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction Period Emissions - Mass Daily Emissions Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the forecast of daily construction emissions has been conducted utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 computer model, recommended for this type of analysis by the District. These calculations assume that the Project complies with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and appropriate dust control measures, as required by the District, would be implemented during each construction phase. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions do not exceed the 10 ton per year threshold during any of the construction phases. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions generated during both years of Phase I construction as well as the 2024 and 2034 time periods exceed the two ton per year threshold established by Rule 9510, Project implementation would occur in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9510, which requires that annual construction NOx emissions be reduced by 20 percent from the statewide average. Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio) emissions, Q~eAKF9 T } Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 25 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL the 15-ton per year threshold would not be exceeded throughout the Project's construction three development phases. The Project's Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) emissions during construction would not exceed 15 tons per year in any of the three development phases and therefore would constitute a less than significant impact. This localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations during Project construction would not exceed any State or federal ambient air quality standard. Project construction would result in the maximum release of sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions. 2. Construction Period Emissions - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the maximum localized concentrations of CO during Project construction do not exceed the State 1-hour or the state 8-hour ambient air quality standards. Therefore, impacts from construction on localized pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. 3. Construction Period Emissions - Global Climate Change Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the annual net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction activities would represent a maximum of 0.001 percent of the 2004 state-wide level. As recommended by the District, the annual GHG construction emissions were then amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emissions estimate comparable to operational emissions) and incorporated into the operational analysis. The GHG analysis was performed in accordance with District and ARB guidance. 4. Construction Period Emissions - Odors Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, while the construction related odors could be detectable to adjacent uses, they are temporary and intermittent in nature. In addition, as construction-related emissions dissipate away from the construction area, the odors associated with these emissions would also decrease and would be quickly diluted. This is particularly true since large portions of the Project site are located more than 500 feet away from off-site sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors during Project construction would be less than significant. 5. Operational Criterion Pollutants - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." Projected CO concentrations at the evaluated intersections do not exceed national or State ambient air quality standards. Therefore, Project development would not result in the creation of a CO hotspot at any location or under any development phase. Thus, Project impacts on localized CO concentrations are less than significant. 6. Concurrent Construction and Operational Emissions Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, due to the construction phasing associated with the proposed Project, Phase I would be operational in 2015, and construction of Phase II would commence in 2024. As such, during the construction of Phase II, which would generate construction-related emissions at the site, operational emissions would also be generated simultaneously at the proposed Project. Concurrent construction and operational emissions would not exceed annual thresholds for all criteria pollutants for which annual thresholds have been established (i.e., ROG and NOX, PMio and PM2.5). Thus a potentially significant regional air quality impact would not occur. 7. Hazardous Air Pollutants c(' o~`~PKF9.~, Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 26 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations vORICMAL Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the toxic air contaminants (TACs) do not have quantified air quality standards like criteria pollutants because there is no safe levels of TACs. The potential risk from the Project Site on sensitive receptors at build out from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) and would result in a less than significant the health risk impact. The Health Risk Assessment completed for the expansion of the Big West Refinery determined that the impacts associated with the expansion would be less than significant. Therefore, based on modeling conducted in the Big West EIR for the proposed expansion, it is assumed that under the normal operating condition scenario health impacts from the Big West Refinery are not anticipated to adversely impact the proposed Project. Based on an evaluation of the prevailing winds, as demonstrated in the meteorological data used in the Project's air dispersion modeling, the Project is not located immediately downwind of Big West. 8. Valley Fever Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project site is not underlain by the types of sediments that are known to contain valley fever spores. The Project would implement appropriate dust control measures, as required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) during each construction phases, therefore, the risk of contacting valley fever in connection with implementation of the proposed Project is considered to be unlikely. Thus the impact from Valley Fever is considered less than significant. 9. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, could contribute to global climate change impacts. It should be noted that even a very large individual project would not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to influence global climate change. The increase in GHG emissions associated with the Project is approximately 0.012 percent of the 2004 emission level. It is important to note that the proposed Project is not anticipated to reach buildout until 2035; however, polices and programs mandated beyond 2020 are unknown or uncertain. Given the state's aggressive goals for 2050, it is likely that emissions reductions strategies forecasted to be in effect in 2020 will need to continue and intensify through Project buildout in 2035. In addition to the reductions in GHG emissions from implementation of State mandates, the proposed Project would incorporate a number of project features that would further reduce GHG emissions. The key project design feature that would reduce project-wide GHG emissions from "business-as-usual" conditions so as to meet AB 32 goals (approximately 29 percent below "business-as-usual") is implementation of the Project's GHG Management Plan. 10. Air Quality Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the District's Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The GAMAQI also identifies any proposed project that is determined to have an individual significant air quality impact is also considered to have a cumulative impact. All of the Project's air quality impacts are less than significant, with the one exception of the exposure of future on-site residents to odors attributed to the operations of the Big West Refinery. However, because this significant impact is solely attributable to the Project's location, rather than any impacts generated by Project construction nor operations and neither Project construction or operation would emit any offensive odors that would be cumulatively considerable, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to odors. Further, the proposed Big West expansion would not cause a a~ bMkF9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 27 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~nRIGINAL significant cumulative health impact for onsite Project residents. As discussed above, diesel particulate emissions (DPM) emissions associated with Project-related truck traffic will not result in a significant health risk impact to offsite sensitive receptors. Based on a review of the Health Risk Assessment for the proposed Big West expansion, it is anticipated that the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant health risk impact to offsite sensitive receptors. The proposed Project's greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered to be substantial when compared to statewide greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable strategies to reduce GHG emissions via the design of the Project itself including, but not limited to, locating commercial uses in proximity to an existing large off-site residential population. The proposed Project would consider and implement feasible construction practices and energy-related technologies consistent with the recommendations and objectives of the responsible Federal, state, and local agencies. NOISE 1. Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inches per second Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity level (in velocity in decibels [VdB]) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity. The vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive receptors would range from 0.005 PPV at the single-family residence located south of the eastern portion (across Coffee Road) of the Project site, to 0.018 PPV at the single-family residential uses located immediately west of the Project site, across Windsong Street. Overall, the vibration velocities experienced by the off-site sensitive receptors are low and would not exceed any of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) or Caltrans' construction vibration damage criteria. Thus, a less- than-significant impact associated with groundborne vibration during construction of the proposed Project would occur at the off-site sensitive uses. 2. Land Use Compatibility Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to Brimhall Road and the segment of Coffee Road located north of Brimhall Road would be within the lanes of those respective roadways during the Phase I opening day of the proposed Project in 2015. As such, impacts associated with land use/noise compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. In addition, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site office uses located adjacent to Coffee Road, south of Rosedale Highway, would be approximately 44 feet from the centerline of Coffee Road during the Phase I opening day in 2015. Based on the proposed site plan for the proposed Project, the nearest on-site office properties located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway would be at least 80 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Thus, the exterior noise standard of 77 dBA CNEL for office uses would not be exceeded for these proposed on-site office uses at the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. During the Phase II development year of 2035, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to Brimhall Road would be within the lanes of this roadway and would not reach the property line of the Project site. As such, impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. In addition, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour ~PKE9 s~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 28 of CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ,niriNAo for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road, would be approximately 61 feet from the centerline of that roadway. Based on the proposed Project site plan, the nearest on- site commercial and office properties located adjacent to this segment of Coffee Road would be at least 90 feet from the centerline of this roadway. As such, the impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. Furthermore, as discussed previously, the nearest on-site office properties located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway would be at least 80 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Thus, these proposed office properties would be located beyond the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour, which is approximately 56 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Therefore, the impacts for these proposed office uses would also be less than significant. As for the remaining office uses that would be developed during Phase III of the proposed Project, the distances from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for these uses would be approximately 62 feet from the centerline of the segment of Coffee Road located north of Brimhall Road, and 57 feet from the centerline of the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway. As discussed above, the proposed on-site office uses would be located beyond these distances within the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed office uses that would be developed during Phase III of the proposed Project would be less than significant. 3. On-site Non-Vehicular Noise Facts SupportingFinding: As described in the EIR, the requirements of Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which serves to reduce noise levels generated by large retail developments on sensitive receptors, have been incorporated as Project Design Features. Specifically, the design features of the proposed Project would prohibit the location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with large retail developments to be within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed with residential uses. In addition, other than trash removal by the City or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations at the Project site would not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed with residential uses unless evidence is submitted to the City by the developer that sound mitigation would be implemented to reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than 3 dBA above the measured background noise level at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to the affected residential uses. The Project's design features also require loading docks at the Project site to include separate walls for noise attenuation, if they are adjacent to residential areas, and requires that these walls be screened with landscaping so that they are not visible from residential areas or public streets. Furthermore, as part of the Project's design features, trash pickup areas within the Project site are not allowed to be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed to match the design of the center. With implementation of the Project design features described above, noise levels generated by the delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with the proposed Project on the nearby off-site noise sensitive uses would be less than significant. 4. Railroad Noise Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, it has been documented that the distance to the 65 dB CNEL contour from rail activity on the BNSF Railway in the City ranges from approximately 290 to 630 feet. Based on the proposed location of the on- o~gAKF9~ T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 29 of 84 v o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL site residential uses associated with the proposed Project, the nearest on-site residences would be located approximately 1,090 feet south of the BNSF Railway. Due to the distance from the railway, the exterior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City's 65 dB CNEL standard for residential outdoor activity areas and the interior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City's 45 dB CNEL standard for interior living spaces. Furthermore, based on the noise measurement that was taken onsite at the location where the nearest on-site residential uses to the railway would be located, an Leq value of 48.4 dBA was measured during a 15-minute span that included a freight train passing by the Project site. The freight train was the loudest source of noise during that noise measurement, with an Lmax value of 59.8 dBA representing the maximum instantaneous noise level that was experienced at the noise measurement location when the train passed by the Project site. Based on the data sources cited above, the exterior and interior areas of the proposed on-site residences would not be exposed to train noise that would exceed 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL, respectively. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 5. Operational Groundborne Vibration Facts Supporting Finding_ As described in the EIR, the trucks accessing the Project site would be traveling on relatively smooth roadway surfaces and would be traveling at low speeds, it is not anticipated that any perceptible groundborne vibration levels would be experienced by the off-site residential uses. Furthermore, as the proposed commercial uses at the Project site would be required to comply with the design standards for large retail developments outlined in Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which prohibits the location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed with residential uses, the vibration levels generated by these on-site operations would not result in a substantial groundborne vibration impact on nearby sensitive uses. The proposed residential uses at the Project site would also be exposed to groundborne vibration generated by freight and passenger trains traveling on the BNSF Railway. As discussed previously, locomotive powered passenger and freight trains traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of up to 85 VdB at 50 feet from the railroad. Based on information from the FTA, a locomotive powered passenger and freight train traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate a groundborne vibration velocity level of 65 VdB, which is the typical threshold of perception for humans, at a distance slightly beyond 300 feet from the track centerline. As the nearest on-site residential uses would be located approximately 1,090 feet from the BNSF Railway, these residential uses would not be exposed to substantial groundborne vibration levels from the passenger and freight trains traveling on the railway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Construction Related Growth Facts Sugportin Finding: As described in the EIR, the construction-related employment opportunities would not likely result in household relocation by construction workers to the vicinity of the proposed Project site for various reasons, including the following: • Construction employment has no regular place of business; rather, construction workers commute to job sites that may change several times a year. • Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g., crane operators, steel workers, masons) and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand for their skills. • The work requirements of most construction projects are also highly specialized, and workers are employed on a job site only as long as their skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. o~0PK~9~T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 30 of 84~ d CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -)RIGINAL • Construction workers would likely be drawn from the construction employment labor force already present in Bakersfield and the surrounding communities. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction workers would relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed Project. 2. Population Growth Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all of the 1,284 new permanent residents generated by the construction of the proposed residential component of the proposed Project would be new to the City and 100 percent of the new employees, approximately 5,169 individuals would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the proposed Project site. This worst- case scenario assumption population growth associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the forecasts of the City Planning Department as well as the Kern COG, and the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly at the City or County level. 3. Housing Growth Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the 425 housing units proposed at project buildout (i.e., 2035) would assist both the City and the County in achieving their overall housing allocations set forth in future updates to the Kern Council of Governments' (Kern COG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan (RHNAAP). The proposed Project does not include an affordable housing component and, as such, would not assist the City or County in meeting their respective Low and Very Low income housing allocations. Nonetheless, the current RHNAAP allocates approximately 59 percent of housing units at the City and County level to Moderate and Above Moderate incomes. Assuming that similar ratios are carried into future updates to the RHNAAP, the proposed Project would increase the overall housing supply, including housing for Moderate and Above Moderate incomes, which compose the majority of housing allocated, and as such would be considered to be substantially consistent with the RHNAAP. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the current RHNAAP and the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial housing growth. 4. Housing Projections Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the proposed Project's increase of 425 housing units by approximately 2035 would be well within extrapolated County projections for the 2015 to 2035 period. Therefore, while these extrapolations do not represent adopted housing forecasts of the Kern COG, City Planning Department, or other government agency, they demonstrate that the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial housing growth at either a City or County level. 5. Job-Housing Balance Facts Supporting Finding; As described in the EIR, the proposed Project, which would create a substantial number of new job opportunities, as well as a moderate supply of new housing, would not only provide job opportunities for future Project residents, but would also provide a large number of job opportunities for the existing and future residents in the surrounding community. This would assist the City in maintaining the existing and future jobs-housing balance. 6. Population and Housing Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the number of residences associated with the proposed Project would account for less than one percent of the cumulative total. The proposed housing is expected to assist the City and County in meeting the regional housing need allocations set forth in the next update to the RHNAAP. Therefore, overall the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact and impacts would be less than significant. ~gAKF9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 31 of 84 m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~r)RIGINAL~ Public Services 1. Police Services - Construction Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures will be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) and City of Bakersfield standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles during the minimal and short-term, construction activities (i.e., lane closures, sidewalk closures, utility line construction, flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting) associated with construction of the proposed Project. 2. Police Services - Officer-to-Population Ratio Facts Supporting Finding• As described in the EIR, any additional staffing would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the proposed Project would contribute. Also, the use of strategic Project Design Features including security cameras, security officers, lights, fencing, gates, and sound building design, would reduce the demand for BPD officers by enhancing public safety and discouraging criminal activity. By consulting with BPD during construction drawing plan check review and participation in existing funding mechanisms, Project impacts would be less than significant. 3. Police Services - Facilities Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, according to the BPD, the proposed Project would not require the construction of new police facilities as they have determined that the current and proposed facilities are sufficient to meet the incremental demand of the Project. 0AK, 9q -n Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 32 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations PIGINAL 4. Police Services Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the increased demand for additional BPD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time as a result of cumulative development would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to BPD review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police protection and services would be less than significant. 5. Fire Protection Services - Construction Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures will be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) and City of Bakersfield standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles during the minimal and short-term, construction activities (i.e., lane closures, sidewalk closures, utility line construction, flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting) associated with construction of the proposed Project. of the proposed Project. 6. Fire Protection Services - Operation Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the all development on-site would be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, Title 19, 22 and 27 of the California Safety Code Regulations, the Bakersfield Municipal Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Standards. Additionally, 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. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. 7. Fire Protection Services - Facilities Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, according to the BFD, no new facilities are anticipated to be required to be constructed due to the development of the proposed Project because the site and proposed uses will be covered by existing stations. In addition, the construction documents for the proposed Project would be subject to review and comment from the BFD and the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD). As the proposed Project would not create the need for expanded facilities, impacts to fire facilities would be less than significant. 8. Fire Protection Services - Fire Flow Facts Supporting Finding; As described in the EIR, the Water Department in cooperation with the City Fire Department would determine the requisite fire flow for specific commercial development as it occurs. According to the BFD, fire flow for the proposed Project site would be adequate to serve the proposed land uses and impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant. 9. Fire Protection Services - Access Facts Supporting Finding; As described in the EIR, the access would be provided according to the requirements of the BFD and KCFD and the proposed development plans would be submitted to the BFD and KCFD for review and comment prior to construction. Thus, Project impacts associated with fire services and apparatus accessibility after construction would be less than significant. 10. Fire Protection Services Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the increased demand for additional BFD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time as a result of cumulative development would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property OAK, taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and o~ 9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 33 of 84 ORIGINAL CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to BPD review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police protection and services would be less than significant. 11. Public School Services Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the Applicant's required payment of school fees per SB 50 is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. With payment of the required fees, impacts to Bakersfield schools would be less than significant. 12. Public School Services - Zone Change Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would change 4 acres currently designated for Public and Private Schools to Mixed Use Commercial. However, there are no current plans to develop a school on the site and therefore the zone change would not result in the loss of a proposed school facility. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 13. Public School Services Cumulative Impacts Facts Supportina Finding As described in the EIR, the developer fees are required per SB 50 and would be applied to the cumulative development with commercial or industrial development. The payment of developer fees is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts as per SB 50. Therefore, cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. 14. Parks/Recreation Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the Project proposes parkland and park improvements in excess of existing regulatory requirements. If the proposed Project were to satisfy the Municipal Code requirement of 3.2 acres exclusively through parkland dedication, the North of the River Recreation and Park District (NOR) would be responsible for the cost of both improvements and ongoing maintenance. The Project proposes to pay for park improvements and provide maintenance of the parks in perpetuity by a property owner's association. Therefore, by providing parkland at a ratio consistent with 2.5 acres per 1,000 population, improvements valued in excess of the fees established within the City's parkland dedication ordinance, and ongoing maintenance in perpetuity, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are warranted. 15. Parks/Recreation Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to review and would dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code, General Plan, and the Quimby Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. 16. Library Services Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the addition of permanent residents to the City of Bakersfield that would be served by the Southwest Branch LSA is consistent with anticipated population growth. In addition, the libraries proposed in the Rosedale East, Rosedale West, and Southwest (Gosford/Panama) areas would contribute to providing adequate library services to the residents of Bakersfield and unincorporated Kern County. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding library services. 17. Library Services Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the need for library services as a result of cumulative development would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., property ~~AKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 34 of 84- M CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations p taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. Therefore, cumulative impacts on library services would be less than significant. UTILITIES 1. Wastewater Facts Sumortina Findina: As described in the EIR, at full buildout in 2035, the proposed Project would add a total of 1.55 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow to Treatment Plant No. 3. The planned 16 MGD expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 from 16 MGD to 32 MGD, which is anticipated to be complete by April of 2010, would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. As the expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 would be completed prior to the occupancy of Phase I of the proposed Project, sufficient treatment capacity would be available to meet the demand generated by each development phase as well as the Project at buildout. Therefore, Treatment Plant No. 3 would have adequate capacity to accommodate and appropriately treat the proposed Project's demand consistent with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) and the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. As such, potential Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. 2. Water Demand Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, the proposed Project's approximate water demand by development phase is as follows: (1) Phase I - 284.0 AF/yr; (2) Phase II - 463.3 AF/yr; and (3) Phase III - 802.8 AF/yr. As the proposed Project's demand for water is approximately one percent of the available water supply at Project buildout, the proposed Project would not significantly change conditions throughout the overall basin or sub-basin groundwater balance. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant. 3. Fire Flow Facts Supporting Finding_ As described in the EIR, the Water Department in cooperation with the City Fire Department would specify the requisite fire flow value as specific commercial developments are constructed. Based on a fire flow test conducted by the City's Fire Department on July 20, 2007 on the south side of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, there is a static pressure of 78 psi and a residual pressure of 74 psi at a flow rate of 2,776 gpm. A projection of pressure to flow rate shows that the maximum commercial flow rate of 3,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours can be provided. The volume of flow required to meet the maximum 3,500 gpm flow rate for two hours is 420,000 gallons which is approximately 1.29 AF. As discussed, this volume is available to the proposed Project site. Therefore, there is sufficient water volume to serve the proposed Project's fire flow demands and Project impacts would be less than significant. 4. Water Demand Cumulative Impacts Facts Supportina Finding As described in the EIR, the cumulative development would use approximately 12,865,746 gallons per day (gpd) of water. In combination with the approximately 696,769 gpd (781 acre feet per year [AF/year] x 892.15 gpd) of the Project, the total cumulative water use would be 13,562,515 gpd or 13.6 million gallons per day (MGD). This is less than one percent of the expected available 2035 supply of approximately 198 MGD (221,500 AF/yr divided by 1,120 MGD). Therefore, the City of ~ AKF9~ 'J Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 35 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations J ^P1r,1N1A1_ Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project and related projects from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. 5. Solid Waste Facts Supportina Finding As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would result in an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 21 tons per day at Project buildout. The proposed Project's total solid waste generation by development phase is as follows: (1) Phase I - 9 tons/day; (2) Phase II - 7 tons/day; and (3) Phase III - 5 tons/day. Solid waste generation at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the daily available capacity of the Bena landfill. Therefore, the landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Project's solid waste disposal needs for each development phase as well as at Project buildout. Therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant. 6. Solid Waste Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding_ As described in the EIR, the cumulative development would generate approximately 281 tons per day of solid waste. In combination with the 21 tons per day) generated by the proposed Project, the total cumulative solid waste generation would be 302 tons per day, which can be accommodated by the existing landfill capacity. This is approximately two percent of the permitted daily capacity of the Bena landfill. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 7. Electricity Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding As described in the EIR, PG&E anticipates that it would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in electrical demand. The cumulative development would use approximately 578,964,800 kilowatt hours per year of electricity. Additionally, each of the cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 8. Natural Gas Facts Supporting Finding: As described in the EIR, the proposed Project would result in an increased natural gas demand of 23.5 million cubic feet per day. The Gas Company has indicated that there is available supply to meet the proposed Project's demands during each development phase as well as at Project buildout. The proposed Project, with the exception of a limited number of connections, would not require additions to or modifications of the existing off-site distribution system. Notwithstanding, the proposed Project would require the upgrading and expansion of the on-site system, which is incorporated into the proposed Project as a Project Design Feature. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require substantial alteration to or construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. Further, existing capacity is available to serve the proposed Project, and thus, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce or constrain the Gas Company's capacity. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. 9. Natural Gas Cumulative Impacts Facts Supporting Finding; As described in the EIR, the cumulative development would use approximately 394,904,049 cubic feet per month of natural gas. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy 8- Is, Y T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 36 of 84 v c CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MEASURES The following discusses the environmental impacts of the proposed Project that exceed defined standards of significance, but can be eliminated or reduced to less than significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Environmental impacts of the proposed Project that cannot be reduced through mitigation to a less than significant level are discussed in Section VIII, Findings Regarding Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures for Significant Environmental Impacts, of this document. LAND USE PLANNING 1. Consistency with Regional Plans The proposed Project would be consistent with area-wide plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan. In addition, the Project design encourages people to live and work in the same area, thereby, minimizing sprawl and reducing traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, air pollution and noise levels. Regional land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project were reviewed and the Project is concluded to be consistent with the following regional plans with implementation of required mitigation. a) Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the Project requires that all facilities associated with remediation, including groundwater and extraction wells, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board following completion of remediation activities. Hazardous waste disposal for the proposed Project would occur in accordance with Kern County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Mitigation Measures: G-1. If buried drilling mud pits or USTs are found on-site, additional assessment including, but not limited to, identification of the drilling mud pits or USTs, collection and analysis of soil samples for evaluation of the materials within the former drilling mud pits or USTs, shall be conducted. Any additional assessment shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. G-2. If soil contamination is discovered (i.e., by sight, smell, visual, etc.) during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented so as to render the area suitable for grading activities to resume. The contaminated soil discovered shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ (in-place), or otherwise managed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and the Soil Management Plan proposed in Mitigation Measure G-4. G-3. If structures and structural foundations are proposed in close proximity to historically abandoned wells, a geotechnical assessment shall be completed to address subsurface structural requirements. Recommendations including setback distances from abandoned wells pa~ o``~~KF9p Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 37 of 84~ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations nRIS41NA! and potential well abandonment or re-abandonment pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.66.080 B and other applicable regulations, identified in this assessment shall be implemented. G-4. A Soil Management Plan for the management and possible reuse or disposal of contaminated soils on the Project site shall be prepared prior to any development activities in portions of the site with impacted soils. Components of the soil management plan shall include, but not be limited to: • A summary of existing soil analytical data for the site, evaluation and incorporation of data from prior Health and Safety Plans (HASP), including exposure monitoring data associated with assessment or remedial activity conducted at the site; • Worker notification and training addressing the potential for worker contact with soils containing hazardous levels of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons; • Provisions for soil and air screening during the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The soil and air screening shall be conducted by a consultant independent of the earthmoving and general contractor conducting earthmoving activities during development of the site. Soil and air screening provisions shall include visual identification of suspect contaminated soils, soil and air screening of soils by portable direct field reading instrumentation (such as a photoionization detector, or PID). Personal air monitoring shall be conducted for petroleum hydrocarbon components with established PELs, such as benzene. • Provisions for identification and evaluation of suspect contaminated soils, not previously identified at the site; and • Provisions for the management of known or suspected impacted soils, including mitigation measures, on-site reuse, or off-site disposal, following soil characterization and notification of appropriate local and state regulatory agencies. G-5. Areas associated with ASTs including any underground supply piping shall be evaluated prior to the commencement of construction activities in these areas. The evaluation shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. Facts Supporting Finding As explained in the EIR, the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5, and would be further reduced by the Project design features described above. The analysis contained in Table IV.G-1, Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies, concludes that there would be no significant consistency impacts of the proposed Project associated with goals and polices of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report, which serves as the policy document guiding all facets of hazardous waste. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous waste. 2. Consistency with City of Bakersfield Plans The proposed Project would be consistent with local-level plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan. The proposed General Plan amendment would effectively promote the concept of a o~ ~AKF,S,N Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 38 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations ORIGINAL new center consisting of a mix of uses as described in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. Local-level land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project were reviewed and the Project is concluded to be consistent with the following plans with implementation of required mitigation. a) Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measure 1-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would be generally consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). Mitigation Measure: 1-1. To avoid impacting San Joaquin kit fox, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for the San Joaquin kit fox, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of off-site San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any San Joaquin kit fox identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director's approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying San Joaquin kit fox habitat land within Kern County. 0~0AKF9u' Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 39 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations M ORIGINAL b) Within 30 days of initial ground disturbance, preconstruction clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the provisions of the MBHCP. Any potential, inactive or active kit fox dens identified as unavoidable, be monitored, excavated and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of the MBHCP and all guidelines, protocols and other provisions of the CDFG, USFWS, Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Survey windows for the San Joaquin kit fox can occur at anytime throughout the year. The survey shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department, prior to approval of a grading permit. c) Prior to earth disturbance phases of construction, all construction personnel shall be trained in sensitive species identification and avoidance techniques and be instructed to be on the lookout for kit fox dens during earth disturbance. Proof of training shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Any evidence, such as dens, observed at any time during construction, shall be promptly reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution. d) During construction, all pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of the kit fox. If not capped or otherwise covered, the openings shall be inspected twice daily in the morning and evening and prior to burial or closure, to ensure no kit foxes or other wildlife become entrapped or buried in pipes. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR, the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation Mitigation Measure 1-1. The proposed Project would comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-1, which requires compliance including paying the required development fee and conducting pre-construction activities to reduce "take" of the San Joaquin kit fox (relocation and/or removal of dens per applicable agency guidelines). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-1, the potential Project impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse would be reduced to a less than significant level. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 1. Intersection Impact Analysis: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the Project would create a walkable development thus promoting pedestrian travel through interconnecting sidewalks and paths, which encourage travel by walking or biking. Further, through the utilization of roadway design features that enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety thus encouraging travel by means other than by motor vehicle. The proposed Project is specifically designed to stimulate pedestrian activity with continuity along the street frontage, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. In addition, an existing transit stop is located less than '/2 mile west of the Project site and the Project Applicant would coordinate with local transit providers to provide transit service directly to the Project site. A network of bike trails and lanes, which are separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, where feasible, would also be provided 0PK,~, Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 40 of 84-- o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL onsite by the Project that would link with future City bike trail plans. The Project would establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of the on-site residents and off-site residents, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation Measures: C-1. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-2. Coffee Road & Norris Road (20): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-3. Verduao Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared southbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-4. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and northbound left-turn lane to provide three left- turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound and northbound directions. C-5. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound through lane to provide four through lanes and one right-turn lane and widening the westbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Install split signal phasing in the east/west direction. C-6. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Hiahwav (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-7. SR 99 NB Off-Rama/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): Increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane. C-8. Real Road & Stockdale Highway (81): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-9. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane (83): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-10. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue (91): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-1 1. California Avenue & Mohawk Street (95): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-12. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue (96): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-13. Coffee Road & Haaeman Road (9): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Ol~AKF9~' T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 41 of 84 v o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL C-14. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound and southbound shared through/right-turn lanes into separate through lanes and right-turn lanes to provide one left- turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction and two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction. C-15. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-16. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (38): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-17. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway (44): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-18. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the northbound direction. C-19. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway (49): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared northbound through/right- turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide two left- turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-20. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58) Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-21. Chester Avenue & 24th Street (63): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared westbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-22. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-23. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the westbound direction. C-24. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): Increase intersection capacity by converting the westbound shared through/right- turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-25. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-26. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through O~~AK~9cf' Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 42 of 84 > rn CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations a ')RIGINAI lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-27. Gosford Street & Camino Media (98): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Facts Supporting Finding As explained in the EIR, the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27, and would be further reduced by Project design features described above. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the analyzed street intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better and/or would not increase intersection delay by more than five seconds due to Project traffic under Future with Project (Phases I, II and III) conditions with implementation of the Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27. 2. Green-Time Priority Analysis (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measures C-28 through C-42, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would implement sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building, as previously described, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation Measures: C-28. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway (25): Improve intersection operation by installing overlapping right-turn signal phasing in all four directions. C-29. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway (31): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in both directions. C-32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-33. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-34. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound ~gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 43 of 84 v O CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL through lane to provide four through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-35. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to convert the shared through/right- turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-36. Verduao Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-37. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-38. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left- turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-39. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-40. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. C-41. Landco Drive & Rosedale Hiahwav (57): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-42. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the eastbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide three through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the eastbound direction. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-28 through C-42 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact criteria with the Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway, the analyzed street intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better and/or would not increase intersection delay by more than five seconds due to Project traffic under Future with Project (Phases I, II and III) conditions with implementation of the Mitigation Measures C-28 through C-42. 3. Street Segment Analysis Finding: As noted below in Mitigation Measures C-43, -44 and -46, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would implement o~~AKF9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 44 of 84 = m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building, as previously described, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation Measures C-43. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway (29): Add one lane in each direction from Rosedale Highway to the BNSF railroad overpass. C-44. Rosedale Hi hway east of Coffee Road (30): Add one lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way. C-46. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road (45): Add one lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to the Westside Parkway. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-43, -44 and -46, and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under Future with Project (Phases I, II and III) conditions with implementation of Mitigation Measures C-43,-44 and -46. 1. Westside Parkway Segment Analysis Finding: As noted below in Mitigation Measure C-55, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would implement sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building, as previously described, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation Measures: C-55. The Project shall pay a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment (i.e., a new freeway lane) to that segment of the Westside Parkway to accommodate the increased traffic consistent with Caltrans Fair Share methodology, which is based on a project participating financially in a freeway improvement according to its proportional impact on the affected freeway facility at the issuance of the first building permit. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure C-55 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The analyzed Westside Parkway Segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under Future with Project (Phases I, II and III) conditions with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-55. 2. Regional Transportation Impact Fee Analysis Finding: As noted below in Mitigation Measure C-56 changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the Project Applicant has been asked and agreed to pay for its fair share of a package of off-site improvements beyond what is required in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program. Mitigation Measure: C-56. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase II, and Phase III (which is any residential development and/or commercial development in excess of Phase I's 1,000,000 square feet of commercial space as defined in the EIR), the Applicant shall cause to be prepared a confirmation analysis by a qualified traffic engineer comparing the Project's impacts provided for at the 121 intersections and 87 street segments analyzed in the Traffic Study with then-existing conditions, as approved by the City Engineer. The AKF9 9 1< Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 45 of 84 m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations '?RIr;INAi. analysis shall determine whether there are any significant impacts remaining at any of the 121 intersections or 87 street segments based on the thresholds of significance employed in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures adopted in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase II and/or Phase III to a less than significant level for each intersection and street segment where the Traffic Study concludes that the Project will have a less than significant impact. The Project Applicant, or its successor in interest, shall undertake or cause to be undertaken the fair share cost of the recommended modifications. Facts Supporting Finding_ As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure C-56 and would be further reduced by the Project Applicant's contribution beyond what is required in the RTIF program described above. The RTIF calculation computes the Project share for each of the RTIF improvements. The computed Project share is the proportion of the Project traffic of the total new traffic at all the RTIF facilities in the study area at the buildout year. The RTIF calculation computes the Project's fair- share for the improvements proposed as part of the RTIF program based on the current transportation impact fee rates. As provided in the Kern COG Southeast Kern County Regional Fee Nexus Study (RTIF Study) the fees paid under the RTIF program are allocated for real improvements that have been priced out and will be completed with RTIF proceeds. The RTIF Study describes the roadways that will have deficient capacity in the future due to continued growth in both local and regional travel. For these future deficient roadways, a fair share allowance of cost has been determined consistent with the requirements of Government Section Code 66000 (AB 1600) so that new development can pay their fee for their fair share of mitigation costs for the traffic impacts that they create. In addition, improvement of local transportation projects was considered in the RTIF Study. The RTIF Study established the connection between new development that is projected to occur in southeast Kern County and the portion of the necessary roadway improvements that will be funded by the RTIF program. 3. Construction Impacts Analysis Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measure C-57, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the City and emergency services would be identified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Project. Thus, construction activities attributable to the proposed Project are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in adverse affects to street operations or a limitation to emergency access. As such, no impacts due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. O~ eAK~c~N fi Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 46 of m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL Mitigation Measure: C-57. The Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Bakersfield. Construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements: a. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. b. Provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person). c. Scheduling construction activities that affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. d. Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible. e. Consolidating truck deliveries to the extent feasible. f. Provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site, to the extent feasible. g. Construction-related vehicles shall not park on any residential street. h. No construction activity shall block access to any residence or place of business, without prior consent or compensation. i. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing, and protection barriers. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-57 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant impacts as a result of construction traffic. The implementation of Mitigation Measure C- 57 is required to further reduce the Project's already less than significant traffic construction related impacts. 4. Emergency Access Findinas: As noted above in Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27, and C-57, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, proposed Project does not include any hazardous design features in the access design or site plan for the proposed Project that could impede emergency access and the Project would not impact existing emergency routes. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be subject to the site plan review requirements of the Bakersfield Police Department and the Bakersfield Fire Department to ensure that all access roads, driveways and parking areas would remain accessible to emergency service vehicles. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27, and C-57 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the analyzed street intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better and/or would not increase intersection delay by more than five seconds due to Project traffic under Future with Project (Phases I, II and III) conditions with implementation of the Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-27. As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant impacts as a result of construction o~gAK, 9q Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 47 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL traffic. The implementation of Mitigation Measure C-57 is required to further reduce the Project's already less than significant traffic construction related impacts. 5. Alternative Transportation Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measure C-58, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would implement sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building, as previously described, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation Measure: C-58. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project on existing bus lines. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure C-58 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Several roadways in the study area have bike lanes. Although the Project site is not directly served by bus transit, the Golden Empire Transit provides bus transit service along several key corridors with the study area including, Stockdale Highway, Rosedale Highway, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road (north of the Project site) Ming Avenue, New Stine Avenue, and California Avenue. Mitigation Measure C-58, above, is proposed and the Project site plan would be designed to not adversely affect the existing and proposed infrastructure for the alternative transportation modes in the vicinity of the Project site and in the study area. 6. Transportation/Traffic Cumulative Impacts Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measure C-56, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. Impacts of cumulative growth were incorporated into the traffic analysis and therefore reflected in the impact discussions presented above. As shown above, none of the study intersections, street segments, or freeway segments are expected to be significantly impacted by Project traffic using the significance thresholds established by the City with implementation of the mitigation measures listed above. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Additionally, similar to the proposed Project, it is anticipated that related projects contributing to cumulative growth would be required on an individual basis to mitigate any significant traffic impacts to the extent possible and likely to less than significant levels. Nonetheless, because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project phase per Mitigation Measure C-56. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-56 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. See the discussion under Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program above. AESTHETICS 1. Light and Glare Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measure D-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the 0Ik~AKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 48 of 84 rn CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations ~')RIGINALL significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project's comprehensive sign plan would include a comprehensive lighting program to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. All lighting, including lighting of parking structures, would be designed to be compatible with surrounding development; directed onto the driveways, walkways and parking and shielded away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way to minimize spillage of the illumination into the surrounding areas and public rights-of-way, and to minimize glare or interference with vehicular traffic. The proposed Project does not include light sources that are atypical of the surrounding urban environment, such as illuminated billboards or light fixtures associated with outdoor sporting events. Likewise, the exterior surfaces of the proposed structures would be constructed with typical surface materials and coatings, similar to those found on comparable developments in Northwest and Southwest Bakersfield. The Project would implement the recommendations provided in the Artificial Lighting Analysis prepared by Lighting Design Studio, LLC, dated February 2008, provided in Appendix E, Artificial Lighting Analysis, of the Draft EIR, including, but not limited to, the following: • All lights would be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there would be no light emitted above the horizontal and not much light (generally <4 percent) at angles greater than 75 degrees above the vertical. • Streetlights would be flat-lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level position and rated as "Dark-Sky Friendly" by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy efficient sodium lamps would be used, mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. • Exterior lighting originating on the proposed Project site would be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines. • Advertising signs would be illuminated from above and would be off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise or until a given business is closed for the day, whichever is later. Mitigation Measure: D-1. All on-site lighting shall be designed to meet the City's current safety, security, and design standards. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the relevant goals and policies from the Public Services and Facilities - Street Lighting Element of the MBGP, as shown in Table IV.D-1, Proposed Project Consistency with Relevant MBGP Goals and Policies Related to Light and Glare, in the Draft EIR. The proposed site plan would be subject to design review to ensure compliance with the specific City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. Furthermore, the nearest light-sensitive land uses are residential uses located east and south of the Project site, which would be buffered from the site by landscaped corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, and perimeter planting areas in order to avoid light spillover from the Project. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area. With implementation of the Project Design Features, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to aesthetics, no mitigation measures are required. However, the Mitigation Measure D- 1 is recommended, which reflects existing design requirements and/or good planning o`` ~ PKF9-~, Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 49 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL. principles, and would further reduce the proposed Project's less than significant impacts. 2. Signage Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measure D-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would include a comprehensive sign plan, submitted as a separate Planning Application for approval by the Planning Commission, developed to regulate sign areas, heights, lighting, color, and materials, following carefully designed principles and design guidelines formulated to provide an integrated architectural style and theme for the commercial centers. Proposed signage would include, but not be limited to, Project monument signs at main entrances to commercial and residential areas. Signage would be coordinated and designed depending on the type of signage (i.e., Project identification, tenant identification, wayfinding, etc.) and the area of the Project in which the signage is located (i.e., commercial, office or residential), as well as the location of the signage within the Project site (i.e., street edge, point of entry, interior, etc.). Mitigation Measure: D-2. A signage plan shall be prepared pursuant to City of Bakersfield requirements and shall be subject to future approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ("C of O") for each phase of the Project. Facts Supporting Finding_ As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure D-2 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The proposed site plan would be subject to design review to ensure compliance with the specific City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. As discussed in Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing uses, recognizing building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting, and other design elements similar to compatible commercial and residential development. With implementation of the Project Design Features, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to aesthetics, no mitigation measures are required. However, the Mitigation Measure D- 2 is recommended, which reflects existing design requirements and/or good planning principles, and would further reduce the proposed Project's less than significant impacts. GEOLOGY/SOILS 1. liquefaction Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measure E-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would comply with all the building requirements set forth in the California Building Code, which have been designed to reduce the likelihood of damage as a result of ground shaking. The project shall comply with current CBC requirements, which would most likely reduce the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Mitigation Measure: E-1. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation shall be completed to confirm specific site conditions and design level geotechnical engineering aspects including the potential for liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope instability, and expansive soil. Recommendations and mitigation identified in this evaluation shall be implemented. Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 50 of 8 t Fn CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -)R'ry NA1 Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The proposed Project site lies in a relatively low to moderate seismic region. Based on the potential for ground shaking, the anticipated local soils in the area, existing information of subsurface conditions in the proposed Project area, and anticipated depths to groundwater, the potential for liquefaction and associated settlement or bearing loss is considered low. 3. Dynamic Compaction Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measure E-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project is located where the potential for dynamic compaction on site is considered to be low. Facts Supporting Finding As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Dynamic compaction occurs when seismic activities create vibrations that cause temporary liquefaction of the underlying stratum. As such, dynamic compaction typically occurs in loose granular material or uncompacted fill soils, neither of which are anticipated to be present on the proposed Project site. As noted above, the risk of dynamic compaction is believed to be very low. 4. Dam Failure Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measure E-1 and below in E-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the proposed Project site is on the opposite side of the City, therefore, flood levels are not likely to reach 30 feet. Accordingly, serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately six to eight hours after dam failure, should failure occur. The lag time between failure and flooding on site would reduce the potential for injury or death from dam failure; however, property damage could occur. Mitiaation Measure: E-2. The Project shall incorporate an emergency notification plan in the event of dam failure into the design of the proposed theater in coordination with the City of Bakersfield and shall develop and maintain plans for safe shutdown and efficient evacuation from this facility. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures E-1 and E-2, and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Furthermore, the Project would comply with the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property; thus, further reducing the potential flooding impacts to a less than significant level. 5. Slope Stability Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measure E-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes, the proposed Project is located where the potential for slope failures or lateral spreading from earthquake-induced ground shaking on site is considered to be low. ~gAKF9 n ~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 51 of 84~ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ()RIGINAL Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Strong ground shaking has the potential for activating landslides on hillsides and inducing lateral spread on sloping ground, slope failures on creek banks (lurch cracking) and tension cracking in areas underlain by loose, low density soil such as uncompacted fill. Because the proposed Project site is relatively level, soils are anticipated to be dense granular. In addition, there are no known areas of extensive fill within the proposed Project site, so, the potential for slope failures or lateral spread from earthquake-induced ground shaking is considered to be very low. Although considered unlikely, the Friant-Kern Canal levee located along the eastern property boundary could possibly experience localized seismically induced bank deformation. This would likely be confined to within three to five feet of the top of bank and would result in less than significant impacts. 6. Expansive Soil Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measure E-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would not be located where expansive soils are anticipated. Facts Supporting Finding As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), has currently mapped the proposed Project site on Sheets 30 and 38 as primarily Wasco sandy loam, with a small area in the northwestern portion of the site consisting of Cajon loamy sand. These soils are on recent alluvial fan deposits of the Kern River and were formed from granitic material. Geotechnical exploration for Coffee Road, Calloway Drive, and other local grade separations in the site vicinity encountered primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands to in excess of 60 feet bgs during explorations. Based on this existing data, the proposed Project site is anticipated to be underlain by interbedded layers of medium dense to dense granular soils. Geotechnical explorations completed in the site vicinity encountered primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands in excess of 60 feet. Soil conditions on the proposed Project site are anticipated to be fairly consistent across the site. Information provided by the NRCS indicates the Cajon soils are sandy soils with minimal fines (small grained materials) while the Wasco soils can contain 25 to 50 percent non plastic fines (with low shrink swell potential). Both soils have low corrosive potential to concrete and moderate to high corrosion potential for uncoated steel. Expansive soils are not anticipated on site based on NRCS data. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Groundwater Quality Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project Design Features would include treatment and testing of runoff in underground retention structures, would minimize impacts to groundwater quality that could result from polluted surface water runoff and Project impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, facilities associated with remediation would be decommissioned and reinstalled as needed in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the Central Valley o~~AKF9~' T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 52 of 84 J m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not interfere with on-site remediation activities and Project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: F-1 The two operational oil wells may continue in operation and the monitoring and extraction wells shall continue to be used in association with on-site remediation activities. No existing wells shall be used on-site for water supply purposes. On-site oil wells that will be abandoned on the Project site shall be abandoned in accordance with State and local guidelines and requirements. Damaged on-site oil wells shall be repaired or abandoned in accordance with DOGGR. F-2 Wellheads (including monitoring wells) shall be locked to reduce the potential for unauthorized access. F-3 The Project does not propose to develop any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells. However, in the event that it becomes necessary to drill or construct any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells, the nature and extent of existing soil and groundwater contamination on site shall be determined by the RWQCB. Oil wells or remediation monitoring wells shall not be completed in contaminated soils, nor shall drilling, wells or construction activities provide conduits for contaminants to move between aquifers. Any new well shall meet the City of Bakersfield, State of California DOGGR, and local agency requirements. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The operation of the proposed Project would not interfere with on- site remediation activities. It is anticipated that the on-site remedial activities would be completed when there is no further potential for impacts to groundwater quality as a result of past contamination. Facilities associated with remediation would be decommissioned and reinstalled as needed in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. As part of the proposed Project, some wells on site would be abandoned and unauthorized access to the wells will be prohibited. In addition, all known contaminants will be treated and removed through the active remediation program in the limited area of the proposed Project site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railroad, limiting any potential conveyance between aquifers and potential Project impacts would be less than significant. These conditions are not anticipated to occur at the proposed Project site. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7. Construction Impacts: Soil and Groundwater Contamination Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, G-4, and G-5, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project site is not located where there are known contamination on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Mitigation Measures: G-1. If buried drilling mud pits or USTs are found on-site, additional assessment including, but not limited to, identification of the drilling mud pits or USTs, collection and analysis of soil samples for evaluation of the materials within the former drilling mud pits or USTs, shall be conducted. Any o~ 0AKF9N fi Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 53 of 84 ' m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ? o '1R!(~INAL additional assessment shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. G-2. If soil contamination is discovered (i.e., by sight, smell, visual, etc.) during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented so as to render the area suitable for grading activities to resume. The contaminated soil discovered shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ (in-place), or otherwise managed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and the Soil Management Plan proposed in Mitigation Measure G-4. G-4. A Soil Management Plan for the management and possible reuse or disposal of contaminated soils on the Project site shall be prepared prior to any development activities in portions of the site with impacted soils. Components of the soil management plan shall include, but not be limited to: • A summary of existing soil analytical data for the site, evaluation and incorporation of data from prior Health and Safety Plans (HASP), including exposure monitoring data associated with assessment or remedial activity conducted at the site; • Worker notification and training addressing the potential for worker contact with soils containing hazardous levels of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons; • Provisions for soil and air screening during the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The soil and air screening shall be conducted by a consultant independent of the earthmoving and general contractor conducting earthmoving activities during development of the site. Soil and air screening provisions shall include visual identification of suspect contaminated soils, soil and air screening of soils by portable direct field reading instrumentation (such as a photoionization detector, or PID). Personal air monitoring shall be conducted for petroleum hydrocarbon components with established PELs, such as benzene. • Provisions for identification and evaluation of suspect contaminated soils, not previously identified at the site; and • Provisions for the management of known or suspected impacted soils, including mitigation measures, on-site reuse, or off-site disposal, following soil characterization and notification of appropriate local and state regulatory agencies. G-5. Areas associated with ASTs including any underground supply piping shall be evaluated prior to the commencement of construction activities in these areas. The evaluation shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. Facts Supporting Finding. As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, G-4, and G-5, and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts during ~gAKky o Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 54 of 84 v a CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAI construction associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be minimized. 2. Construction Impacts: Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) Findinas: As noted above in Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, G-4, and G-5, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project site is not located where there are known ASTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Facts Supporting Finding_ As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, G-4, and G-5, and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts as a result of encountering ASTs during construction associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be minimized. 3. Construction Impacts: Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measures G-4 and G-5, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project site is not located where there are known USTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Facts Supporting Finding_ As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-2 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. Therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts as a result of encountering USTs during construction associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be minimized. 4. Construction Impacts: Existing and Abandoned Wells Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures G-3 and G-6, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the Project would require that all facilities associated with remediation, including groundwater and extraction wells, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB following completion of remediation activities. Mitigation Measures: G-3. If structures and structural foundations are proposed in close proximity to abandoned wells, a geotechnical assessment shall be completed to address subsurface structural requirements. Recommendations including 10-foot setback distances from abandoned wells and potential well abandonment or re-abandonment pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.66.080 B and other applicable regulations, identified in this assessment shall be implemented. G-6. The Project Applicant shall locate, leakage test, and re-abandon the abandoned wells prior to construction of the Project. When construction occurs where these are located, the wells on site shall be abandoned in accordance with appropriate regulatory requirements pursuant to the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources current standards depending on the nature of the well. AKF'9v' Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 55 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations _')-)Rl('INAQJ Facts Supporting FindiM As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures G-3 and G-6, and would be further reduced through compliance with applicable regulations, construction impacts associated with existing wells on site would be less than significant. Therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts as a result of existing and abandoned wells during construction associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be minimized. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Petroleum Resources Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measure H-1, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure: H-1. To provide continued access to underlying oil reserves, drilling sites shall be reserved in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.66.080 C. for the two active petroleum extraction wells. New construction and improvements in the vicinity of existing wells shall conform to City setback development standards and shall be developed in accordance with applicable regulations of the City of Bakersfield and Department of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Facts Supporting Finding; As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 the Project would be consistent with the goals and polices of the MGBP. The viable oil reserves in the location of the Project, and two wells on site, which are actively producing oil are beneficial to the region and would not be demolished as part of the Project. They would continue to operate per City standards and would continue to be beneficial to the region. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Wildlife: Special Status Wildlife Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures 1-1 through 1-3, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would be generally consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). Mitigation Measures: 1-1. To avoid impacting San Joaquin kit fox, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for the San Joaquin kit o~~AKF9J, T, m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 56 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL fox, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG. Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG, that provides for the preservation of off-site San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any San Joaquin kit fox identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director's approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying San Joaquin kit fox habitat land within Kern County. b) Within 30 days of initial ground disturbance, preconstruction clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the provisions of the MBHCP. Any potential, inactive or active kit fox dens identified as unavoidable, be monitored, excavated and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of the MBHCP and all guidelines, protocols and other provisions of the CDFG, USFWS, Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Survey windows for the San Joaquin kit fox can occur at anytime throughout the year. The survey shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department, prior to approval of a grading permit. c) Prior to earth disturbance phases of construction, all construction personnel shall be trained in sensitive species identification and avoidance techniques and be instructed to be on the lookout for kit fox dens during earth disturbance. Proof of training shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Any evidence, such as dens, observed at any time during construction, shall be promptly reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution. d) During construction, all pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of the kit fox. If not capped or otherwise covered, the openings shall be inspected twice daily in the morning and evening and prior to burial or closure, to ensure no kit foxes or other wildlife become entrapped or buried in pipes. o~ gAKF~N } T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 57 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL ? 1-2. To avoid impacting nesting birds, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for sensitive and nesting birds, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of off-site habitat for sensitive and nesting birds. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any sensitive or nesting birds identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of habitat impacts to sensitive or nesting birds. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the some time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director's approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying sensitive and nesting bird habitat land within Kern County. b) Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of any previously unidentified protected species, which are not addressed in the MBHCP. If encountered, the USFWS and CDFG shall be notified of previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to the CDFG and USFWS. No activities shall occur until Incidental Take authorization has been obtained from the CDFG and USFWS. 1-3. To avoid adverse impacts to Burrowing Owl, the following measures shall be implemented: O~bAKF~ T m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 58 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL a) Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the proposed Project's impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status). Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities are required until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist: 1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500 foot buffer around any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active nest is observed during the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will flush any raptor to open space areas. A qualified biologist, or construction personnel under the direction of the qualified biologist, will then remove the nest site so raptors cannot return to a nest. b) The Project Applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys prior to ground disturbance to ensure that no burrowing owls are present on-site and to ensure avoidance of direct take or accidental entrapment of burrowing owls. If nests are encountered, the use of agency. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures 1-1 through 1-3 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. There is a low-moderate potential for San Joaquin pocket mouse to occur on-site, a moderate potential for California horned lark to occur on-site, and a high potential for burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox to occur on-site. The Project would comply with the MBHCP and would restrict grading activities during the nesting period of the California horned lark or would conduct pre-construction surveys and require temporary avoidance buffers for any nesting individuals. The proposed Project would not substantially reduce or have a substantial adverse effect on habitat as the region supports abundant suitable habitat for this species. The proposed Project would not substantially reduce or have a substantial adverse effect on foraging habitat, as there are more extensive regional habitats for foraging in the surrounding vicinity. 2. Biological Resource Cumulative Impacts Findinas: As noted above in Mitigation Measures 1-1 through 1-3, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or AKF9s Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 59 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-2 and would be further reduced by the fact that the cumulative development projects with similar potential impacts would also be required to implement similar mitigation measures for these sensitive resources under their CEQA evaluations and regulatory agency requirements. In addition, most, if not all, of the cumulative development projects would be required to comply with the MBHCP with regard to paying the development fee and implementing "take" avoidance measures. The MBHCP was designed to consider the cumulative effect of land development in the City of Bakersfield as a whole by designating and preserving lands that have a higher biological value and that exist in large, contiguous areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources in the region have effectively been addressed by the analysis contained in, and the implementation of, the MBHCP. CULTURAL RESOURCES 3. Archeological Resources Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would not be developed in an area of any known archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures: J-1. During excavation and grading activities, if archaeological resources are discovered on site, the Project Developer/Contractor shall stop all work and shall retain a qualified archaeologists to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes and regulations of the Native American Heritage Commission. J-2. If human remains are discovered as a result of the proposed Project during development, all activity shall cease immediately, the Project Developer/Contractor shall notify the Kern County Coroner's Office immediately under state law, and a qualified archeologist and Native American monitor shall be contacted. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. Facts Supporting Finding; As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The cultural records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the proposed Project site and identified only six sites in the area, of which only one is considered eligible for (but is not listed on) the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). The field survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the proposed Project site with the exception of a small site identified as CA-KER- 7285; however, it is not associated with a specific event or individual and is not considered historically significant. CA-KER-7285 does not meet California Register eligibility criteria, and is therefore not considered a resource under CEQA. Thus, the proposed Project and no further management of the site is required. Further, due toIk~AKF9 s Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 60 of 84: m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL the low probability of subsurface features, a construction monitor is not recommended for the planned work. 4. Human Remains and Unidentirled Cultural Resources Findinas: As noted above in Mitigation Measure J-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would not affect any known human remains or cultural resources. Facts Supporting Finding; As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2, and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The cultural records search did not identify any cultural resources within the proposed Project site and identified only six sites in the area. The field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the proposed Project site with the exception of a small site identified as CA-KER-7285. It is possible that buried or concealed archaeological sites, features, or other cultural properties eligible for listing in the California Register could be present within the proposed Project area and could become exposed during the course of construction or other proposed Project-related activities. Such sites or features might include aboriginal middens or artifact scatters, remnants of aboriginal houses, fire hearths, human burials and cemeteries, and historical dumps and trash deposits. Although encountering these materials is not likely based on the results of the records search and the field survey, disturbance of such features is possible. According to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are spelled out under Public Resources Code Section 5097. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction Emissions Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-18, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition, to these changes the Project would implement the following Project Design Features: • The proposed Project would also incorporate design features that reduce NO. and PM1o emissions during Project construction. • In addition to the Project Design Features identified above, Project construction and operations would occur in accordance with all applicable District Regulations and Rules. Mitigation Measures: K-1 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized with regard to dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. K-2 All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-3 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall effectively control fugitive dust emissions via the application of water or by presoaking. O~ OAKF,q~ T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 61 of 84 o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations nRIGINAL K-4 During the demolition of the existing on-site buildings, all exterior surfaces of the buildings shall be wetted during demolition. K-5 When materials are transported off-site, all materials shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. K-6 All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) K-7 Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-8 Trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the Project site and at the end of each workday. K-9 Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. K-10 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. K-11 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent toward public roadways. K-12 Install wheel washers for exiting trucks, or wash off all truck equipment leaving the site whenever trackout exceeds 50 feet. K-13 Install wind breaks at windward sides of construction areas. K-14 Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII's 20 percent opacity limitation). K-15 All diesel equipment shall be fitted with a CARB certified diesel particulate filter as previously described. K-16 All diesel equipment shall operate on ultra low sulfur, low NOx fuel where available or NOx reducing DOC-SCR as previously described. K-17 During construction of the site, the Project Applicant shall provide the City with the annual Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System (DOORS) report. K-18 Prior to grading permit approval, the Project Applicant shall provide plan that indicates that all Project loading docks will be equipped with electrical hookups. All transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) will be required to use the electrical hookups while idling. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-18 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (District) adopted significance thresholds vary by pollutant. Implementation of the mandatory District rules ensure the Project's construction impacts with regards to (1) fugitive dust from earthmoving activities; (2) construction equipment exhaust; and (3) construction worker vehicle exhaust, are less than significant. NOISE 1. Construction Noise Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or OAK substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than o~ Fyn } m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 62 of 84 vnRIGINAL CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations significant levels. In addition to these changes, the following Project Design Features would lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the Project: • The location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with large retail development portions of the proposed Project site would be prohibited to be within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed solely with residential uses. In addition, other than trash removal by the City or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations at the Project site would not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed solely with residential uses unless evidence is submitted to the City by the developer that sound mitigation would be implemented to reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than 3 dBA above the measured background noise level at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to the affected residential uses. • Loading docks at the proposed Project site would be required to include separate walls for noise attenuation, if they are adjacent to residential areas, and these walls would be required to be screened with landscaping so that they are not visible from residential areas or public streets. Furthermore, as part of the Project's design features, trash pickup areas within the proposed Project site are not allowed to be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed to match the design of the center. • The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design any necessary treatments for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses during each of the three phases of development (i.e., opening day (Phase I) in 2015, Phase II in 2035, and Project buildout (Phase III) in 2035) to ensure that nearby off-site residences would not be exposed to operational noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, methods such as: o Use of enclosures or localized barriers around equipment noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, exhaust fans, trash pickup areas, etc.); and o Placement of barriers between the off-site and on-site residences and commercial and office uses. Mitigation Measures: L-1. During construction of the site, noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. L-2. During construction of the site, the Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. L-3. During construction of the site, barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains a minimum of eight feet in height shall be erected along the Project site's western, southern, and eastern boundary to minimize the amount of noise during construction on the surrounding off-site single-family residential uses. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 63 of q CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0ORIGINAI rl~ described above. The proposed Project's impact associated with construction-related noise and groundborne vibration would be less than significant without mitigation. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3, which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction at the Project site, would serve to further reduce the noise and vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed Project to the maximum extent feasible. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Police Services - Response Times Findinas: As noted below in Mitigation Measure C-57, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the proposed Project does not include any hazardous design features in the access design or site plan for the proposed Project that could impede emergency access and the Project would not impact existing emergency routes. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be subject to the site plan review requirements of the Bakersfield Police Department and the Bakersfield Fire Department to ensure that all access roads, driveways and parking areas would remain accessible to emergency service vehicles. Mitigation Measure: C-57. The Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Bakersfield. Construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements: a. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. b. Provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person). c. Scheduling construction activities that affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. d. Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible. e. Consolidating truck deliveries to the extent feasible. f. Provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site, to the extent feasible. g. Construction-related vehicles shall not park on any residential street. h. No construction activity shall block access to any residence or place of business, without prior consent or compensation. i. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing, and protection barriers. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure C-57 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. As previously noted above, the Project would not result in any significant impacts as a result of construction traffic. The implementation of Mitigation Measure C- 57 is required to further reduce the Project's already less than significant traffic construction related impacts. O~ 0AKF9N T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 64 of 8 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations ORIGINAL 2. Fire Protection Services - Response Times Findings: As noted above in Mitigation Measures C-57 changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures C-57 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. As noted above, the Project would not result in any significant impacts as a result of construction traffic. The implementation of Mitigation Measure C- 57 is required to further reduce the Project's already less than significant traffic construction related impacts. According to the BFD, the distance between the proposed Project site and Station 11 meets the desired response distance standards of the Department. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure C-57 is proposed to further reduce impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project impact with respect to response times would be less than significant. UTILITIES 1. Wastewater Cumulative Impacts Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measures 0-1 and 0-2, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, or result in a determination that there is inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The implementation of the Mitigation Measures 0-1 and -2, are not necessary to reduce the proposed Project's impacts to less than significant levels and would assure that this would occur. As such, Project and cumulative impacts with regard to wastewater would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: 0-1. Prior to or along with final site plan review, issuance of building permit, or recordation of a subdivision map, whichever occurs first, the Project Applicant shall submit a comprehensive sewer study to the City Engineer to verify sufficient sewer capacities downstream of the Project. Although current studies demonstrate sufficient downstream capacities, if the City Engineer determines there is not adequate capacity, Mitigation Measure 0-2 as follows shall be required. 0-2. Prior to issuance of building permits, or recordation of a subdivision map, the Project Applicant shall participate in a planned sewer district and/or construct additional sewer infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction of the Project site shall be phased to accommodate sewer capacities as approved by the City Engineer. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures 0-1 and 0-2 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The increased wastewater flows throughout the Treatment Plant No. 3 service area would be served by the expansion of this facility from a capacity of 16 MGD to 32 MGD. Although, this facility only has an existing available excess capacity of approximately 0.5 MGD, a portion of the expansion capacity is expected to be available prior to completion of the expansion project. The cumulative wastewater generation of 50 of ~ gAKF9 T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 65 of 84- m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations r, p IRIGINAL the 85 related projects that are within the service area of Treatment Plant No. 3 would generate approximately 12,175,952 gpd or 12 MGD of wastewater. In combination with the approximately 1.55 MGD or 1,551,161 gpd of the proposed Project, the total cumulative wastewater generation would be approximately 14 MGD or 13,727,113 gpd. This is approximately 44 percent of the 32 MGD capacity of Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition to the existing flow of 15.5 MGD of wastewater, the additional 14 MGD would not exceed the 32 MGD capacity of the Treatment Plant No. 3. Out of the other 35 related projects, two have been withdrawn; therefore, only 33 remaining projects would be served by one of the following four other major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2, the NORSD Plant, Mount Vernon/Panorama District Plant, and the Lamont Public Utility District Plant. However, these projects were included in the cumulative impacts totals to represent a conservative estimate. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division is proposing to construct Treatment Plant No. 4. It is anticipated that these facilities would have adequate capacity to serve and treat wastewater generated by the related projects not served by Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition, many of the related projects consist of redevelopment of existing developed sites that would result in the elimination of existing wastewater generation patterns at these sites. Therefore, it is concluded that Treatment Plant No. 3 has adequate capacity to serve and adequately treat wastewater from the proposed Project and related projects within its service area as they are developed. The potential need for the related projects to require upgraded wastewater lines to accommodate wastewater generated by these projects is site-specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. Cumulative increases in wastewater generation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. However, the following two mitigation measures have been recommended by the City to ensure impacts to the City's wastewater trunk-line system would be less than significant. 2. Electricity Findings: As noted below in Mitigation Measure 0-3 changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR to less than significant levels. In addition to these changes, the Project Applicant would coordinate with PG&E staff early in the planning stages to ensure that adequate service and facilities are incorporated into the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure: 0-3. Prior to issuance of building permits, or recordation of a subdivision map, each phase of development shall be further evaluated to confirm that the electrical demand can be served by PG&E. Additional on-site infrastructure may be required to be implemented to meet required demand, including one or both of the following: a. Addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation; and/or b. Construction of a new sub-station within the Project site. A new substation would require a new feed from the existing transmission lines. Construction of a new substation would also require approval by the City of Bakersfield. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR the potentially significant effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation o~~AKF9 T Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 66 of 84 v o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL. Measure 0-3 and would be further reduced by the Project design principles described above. The proposed Project would result in an increase of 425,543 kilowatts per year of electricity demand. According to PG&E, there are no existing service problems or deficiencies. PG&E has indicated that there is available supply and distribution capacity to meet the proposed Project's demands attributable to each development phase as well as at Project buildout. However, PG&E cannot definitively determine whether existing lines can provide power to the proposed Project at this time. This determination would be made by PG&E based on the actual power demand for the proposed Project. If the existing system can accommodate proposed Project demand, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. If the existing facilities are not able to accommodate proposed Project demand, there is a potential for impact. VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following discusses the environmental impacts of the proposed Project that exceed defined standards of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. In some cases, this is due to the very nature of the Project's location on an undeveloped site for which any development would result in a significant impact. Traffic/Transportation 1. Green-Time Priority Analysis (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Findings: Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations identified in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) make infeasible additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Intersection impacts, specifically those at the following two intersections, would be significant and unavoidable: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway Facts in Support of Finding As explained in the EIR, all of the intersection impacts were found to result in less than significant impacts with the exception of intersection #30 and #56 listed above. The Mitigation Measures C-28 through C-42 partially mitigate the Project's Phases I & II intersection impacts to below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact at the two intersections during afternoon peak hours. While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft EIR, they would exceed the City's design standards, would require acquisition of additional right-of-way, and adding any more lanes would potentially make the intersections unworkable. No further mitigation measure could be identified at these two locations. Thus, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain at these locations even after Phases I & II Mitigation Measures C-28 through C-42, are implemented under the Five-Second Delay criteria when considering the Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway. As discussed in Section X, Findings Regarding the Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, some of the proposed Project alternatives were rejected because they would have equivalent or greater impacts than the Project and/or would not meet the Project objectives to transform a underutilized site with a sustainable, "high- quality" infill development that complements existing development trends in the area to provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. Furthermore, as required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, the EIR proposes and o~gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 67 of 84? m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations v o ORIGINAL, NNNNNNNNNN~ describes mitigation measures designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid each identified potentially significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines "mitigation" as including: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. While, by definition, mitigation may require that changes be made to the project proposed by an applicant for purposes of minimizing environmental impacts, the EIR's proposed mitigation measures do not alter the fundamental description of the Project analyzed. Mitigation measures which would result in changes to the proposed Project's density and land uses (to potentially reduce traffic intersection impacts) that are germane to accommodating the Project's objectives were considered and ruled out as infeasible because their incorporation would in some cases introduce greater impacts and would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant impacts. Project density and proposed land uses are needed to support and/or achieve the amenities and benefits proposed in the Project. Because there are no mitigation measures available to reduce these intersection impacts that are consistent with the Project objectives and would not result in greater environmental impacts, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City finds this remaining significant impacts to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this unavoidable impact of the Project for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings. 2. Street Segment Analysis Finding: Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations identified in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) make infeasible additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Street segment impacts, specifically those at the following nine street segments, would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measures could be identified to mitigate street segment impacts below the City's significance criteria in the following Project development phases: Phase I (Year 2015) • Street Segment #47, Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue • Street Segment #61, Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway • Street Segment #65, California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway Phases I & II (Year 2035) • Street Segment # 14, Coffee Road north of Hageman Road • Street Segment #28, Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway • Street Segment #31, Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue Phases I, II & III (Year 2035) • Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road • Street Segment #62, Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway Facts in Support of Finding_ As explained in the EIR, all of the impacts at these street segments were mitigated to less than significant impacts with the exception of Street Segment #44 (Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road) would remains impacted even after mitigation to include the addition of a fourth lane in each direction due to the reduced capacity assigned to the additional lanes according to the City's specifications (see Mitigation Measure C-45). <0A►cF9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 68 of 8,4_ m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o ,)RIGINAL In opening year conditions no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate street segment impacts; therefore, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. With respect to Street Segment #s 47, 61, and 65 the following mitigation measures were found to be infeasible: C-47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (47): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue. C-48. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (61): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway. C-49. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (65): Add one lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway. The mitigation measures described would mitigate the identified impacts, but would exceed the City's design standards. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue along the impacted segments would require the removal of many multi-story office and residential buildings that line the two street segments (i.e., Street Segments #47 and #65) and would eliminate landscaping along the sidewalks. Widening of Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #61) would require the replacement or widening of a bridge over a canal as well as the removal of several retail buildings on the west side of Coffee Road. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate the impacts at these four locations. Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. However, the impacts Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (Street Segment #47) and on California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #65) are temporary in nature as these locations would not be impacted upon completion of the Westside Parkway, which is not part of the Project. Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. With respect to Street Segment #s 14, 28, 31, and 77, the following mitigation measures were found to be infeasible: C-50. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (14): Add one lane in each direction from Olive Road to Hageman Road. C-51. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Hi hwgy (28): Add one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway. C-52. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street (31): Add one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street. C-53. Gosford Avenue south of Ming Avenue (77): Add one lane in each direction Ming Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard. These impacted street segments would be built out to the City's maximum design standards for arterials of six lanes by 2035. Widening of Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) may not be feasible due to the number of private residences along the east side of the street and utility towers lining the west side of the street immediately beyond the gutter. Widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian- friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the area would be significant to residents. Adding one lane in each direction from Granit Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway (Street Segment #28) would require right-of-way acquisition/encroachment at the Friant-Kern Canal on east of the street and at Extreme Wireless Store. It would remove existing landscaping on the southwest corner of Coffee Road and Granite Falls Drive. In o`~gAKF9cn Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 69 of 84 17- I 0 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL addition, right-of-way acquisition would be required for the frontage at the shopping center at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway and would remove existing landscaping and could remove parking. It would also require the relocation of two electrical boxes and two vaults at the shopping center on the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Rosedale Highway. Adding one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street to mitigate impacts on Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk (Street Segment #31) would require at least 12 feet of right-of-way acquisition from each side of Rosedale Highway for a distance of approximately half a mile. The acquisition of this property would have extensive impacts to local businesses on the south side of Rosedale highway. It would require parking loss and lot reconfiguration at numerous commercial and industrial properties along this stretch. Additionally, along the north side of the street, underground oil field utilities could be affected. Power lines on the south and communication lines on the north would need to be removed and relocated to accommodate the widening. The widening would also have negative impacts on noise levels and air quality in the vicinity, as the traffic would be closer to the existing businesses on the south side of Rosedale Highway. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate the impacts at these four locations (i.e., Street Segments #14, #28, #31, and #77). Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II & III), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. With respect to Street Segment #s 44 and 62, the following mitigation measures were found to be infeasible: C-45. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (44): Add one lane in each direction from the BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road. C-54. Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway (62): Add one lane in each direction from Kroll Way to Stockdale Highway. As discussed on page IV.C-65, the segment on Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44) would exceed the City's maximum design standards, and on discussed above and on page IV.C-66, Street Segment #44 remains impacted even after the addition of a fourth lane in each direction due to the reduced capacity assigned to the additional lanes according to the City's specifications. However, if the additional lanes were assigned the some capacity as the other six lanes (10,000 vehicles per day per lane), no significant impact would remain. Mitigation Measure C-54 (Street Segment #62), the addition of one lane in each direction from Kroll Way to Stockdale Highway, would require extensive right-of-way acquisition, resulting in the removal of up to 11 single family homes on the east side of Gosford Road. It would also cause a significant change to the character of the street. As Gosford Road passes through an upscale residential neighborhood, it provides a tree-lined median, bike lanes on each side of the street, and a meandering walking path on the west side of the street. These amenities would need to be condensed or removed to allow room for the additional travel lanes, having significant aesthetic and recreational impacts. This would further have the effect of bringing fast-moving traffic closer to homes, along with the additional noise and air quality deterioration that brings. Further, the west side of Gosford Road currently houses four electrical boxes and three utility vaults that would need to be removed and relocated to make space for the additional lanes. ~gAKF9 s Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 70 of 84 m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations j p ORIGINAI. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures consistent with Project objectives to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. Further, as discussed in Section X, Findings Regarding the Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, some of the proposed Project alternatives were rejected because they would have equivalent or greater impacts than the Project and/or would not meet the Project objectives to transform a underutilized site with a sustainable, "high-quality" infill development that complements existing development trends in the area to provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. Furthermore, as required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, the EIR proposes and describes mitigation measures designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid each identified potentially significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines "mitigation" as including: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. While, by definition, mitigation may require that changes be made to the project proposed by an applicant for purposes of minimizing environmental impacts, the EIR's proposed mitigation measures do not alter the fundamental description of the Project analyzed. Mitigation measures which would result in changes to the proposed Project's density and land uses (to potentially reduce street segment impacts) that are germane to accommodating the Project's objectives were considered and ruled out as infeasible because their incorporation would in some cases introduce greater impacts and would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant impacts. Project density and proposed land uses are needed to support and/or achieve the amenities and benefits proposed in the Project. Because there are no mitigation measures available to reduce these street segment impacts that are consistent with the Project objectives, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this unavoidable impact of the Project for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings. o~ 0AK49 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 71 of 84 O CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0RIC7INAI. NOISE 1. Operational Noise: Traffic Noise on Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Findings: Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations identified in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) make infeasible additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Off-site noise impacts, specifically those at the following two street segments, would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measures could be identified for both Project and Cumulative impacts during the operational phase. Project Operational Impacts Significant roadway noise impacts during Phase II and III operations along two roadway segments: • Brimhall Road east of Calloway Drive • Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road Cumulative Operational Impacts Significant cumulative noise impacts during Phase I, II and III operations would occur at the following roadway segment: • Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road Mitigation Measure: L-4 With submission of a subdivision map on the proposed residential area, the Project Applicant shall submit an acoustical study to determine necessary design features or treatments for the proposed residential buildings or structures such that the intruding noise from roadway traffic on these noise-sensitive receptors are limited to 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, the following methods: • Increasing the distance between the noise source and the residential use; • Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise- sensitive areas; • Orienting buildings to shield outdoor activity areas from a noise source; • Locating noise-sensitive living spaces such as bedrooms and balconies away from noise sources; • Erect a noise wall between the residential use and the noise source; and • Constructing all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential structures at the Project site with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction that provides a Sound Transmission Class of 50 or greater as defined in the California Building Code (CBC). Facts Supporting Findina: As described in the EIR, off-site locations in the Project vicinity would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the additional traffic generated by the proposed Project during each development phase. The proposed Project's contribution to increases in noise levels at selected roadway segments located in close proximity to the Project site that are fronted by noise-sensitive uses during each of the three development phases. The proposed Project would exceed the City's identified noise thresholds at the listed segments. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this roadway segment, this impact would be significant. In terms of adjoining land uses, these significant impacts would occur at the o~~AKF9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 72 of 84 m o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations r1RlGINAI. single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road east of Calloway Drive, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would be barely perceived, if at all, by the average person; however, individuals sensitive to noise would likely perceive an increase in noise levels at locations where the increase is over 3 dBA CNEL. While Mitigation Measure L-4 would reduce noise impacts, it would not eliminate them. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures consistent with Project objectives to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. As discussed in Section X, Findings Regarding the Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, some of the proposed Project alternatives were rejected because they would have equivalent or greater impacts than the Project and/or would not meet the Project objectives to transform a underutilized site with a sustainable, "high-quality" infill development that complements existing development trends in the area to provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. Furthermore, as required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, the EIR proposes and describes mitigation measures designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid each identified potentially significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines "mitigation" as including: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. While, by definition, mitigation may require that changes be made to the project proposed by an applicant for purposes of minimizing environmental impacts, the EIR's proposed mitigation measures do not alter the fundamental description of the Project analyzed. Mitigation measures which would result in changes to the proposed Project's density and land uses (to potentially reduce traffic intersection impacts) that are germane to accommodating the Project's objectives were considered and ruled out as infeasible because their incorporation would in some cases introduce greater impacts and would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant impacts. Project density and proposed land uses are needed to support and/or achieve the amenities and benefits proposed in the Project. Because there are no mitigation measures available to reduce these intersection impacts that are consistent with the Project objectives and would not result in greater environmental impacts, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City finds this remaining significant impacts to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this unavoidable impact of the Project for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings. 2. Land Use Compatibility Findings: Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations identified in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) make infeasible additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Noise impacts as a result of land use compatibility would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measures could be identified for both Project and Cumulative impacts during the operational phase. Facts Supporting Findings: As discussed in the EIR, during the Phase III buildout year of 2035, the distance from the 70 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the proposed on-site residential uses located north of Brimhall Road would be 57 and 180 feet, respectively. Based on the proposed site plan for the proposed Project, the closest on-site residential AKF9N Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 73 of 84 y CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Q) ORIGINAL properties fronting Brimhall Road could be located as close as approximately 109 feet north of the roadway. If the residential development constructed during the Project's final phase occurs at this location, the exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for residential uses would not be exceeded and impacts would be less than significant. However, the City's 65 dBA CNEL standard for residential outdoor-activity areas would be exceeded if the proposed residential uses are built within 180 feet of Brimhall Road. If the proposed residential uses are built beyond 180 feet of Brimhall Road, the City's 65 dBA CNEL standard would not be exceeded. As it cannot be determined at this time exactly where the proposed residential uses would be developed in 2035 relative to Brimhall Road, it is assumed, for the purpose of a conservative analysis, that the Project's residential uses may be located within 180 feet of Brimhall Road. As such, this impact would be significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures consistent with Project objectives to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. As discussed in Section X, Findings Regarding the Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, some of the proposed Project alternatives were rejected because they would have equivalent or greater impacts than the Project and/or would not meet the Project objectives to transform a underutilized site with a sustainable, "high-quality" infill development that complements existing development trends in the area to provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. Furthermore, as required by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, the EIR proposes and describes mitigation measures designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid each identified potentially significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines "mitigation" as including: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. While, by definition, mitigation may require that changes be made to the project proposed by an applicant for purposes of minimizing environmental impacts, the EIR's proposed mitigation measures do not alter the fundamental description of the Project analyzed. Mitigation measures which would result in changes to the proposed Project's density and land uses (to potentially reduce traffic intersection impacts) that are germane to accommodating the Project's objectives were considered and ruled out as infeasible because their incorporation would in some cases introduce greater impacts and would not reduce or eliminate the Project's significant impacts. Project density and the proposed land uses are needed to support and/or achieve the amenities and benefits proposed in the Project. Because there are no mitigation measures available to reduce these intersection impacts that are consistent with the Project objectives and would not result in greater environmental impacts, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The City finds this remaining significant impacts to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this unavoidable impact of the Project for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings. AIR QUALITY 1. Odor Findings: Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations identified in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) make infeasible additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Odor impacts, specifically those resulting from the Big West 01(P y ~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 74 of 84 v p CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL Refinery, would be significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measures could be identified. Facts Supporting Finding: As explained in the EIR, the Project's proposed 425 residential units (i.e., sensitive receptors) could potentially be exposed to existing sources of objectionable odors from the Big West refinery, which is the nearest source of potential objectionable odors located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant Kern Canal. Refineries such as Big West have processes that can release compounds into the atmosphere that have odors. Petroleum refineries located within two miles of sensitive receptors could generate a degree of odors that could potentially be significant. Based on past complaints on the Big West refinery and other refineries in the City, and the fact that additional petroleum processing units are planned for development at the Big West refinery in the near future to increase production of gasoline and diesel fuel, the odors generated at the Big West refinery would result in a significant impact on the proposed residential uses at the Project site. However, this conclusion is based on a strict interpretation of the District's significance threshold with regard to odors. When considering this conclusion it is important to note that the prevailing winds in the Project area are from the northwest and the Big West refinery is located east of the Project site, thereby placing the Project site upwind of the Big West refinery. As such, the potential for the significant odor impact described above to actually occur is limited. As a result, the conclusion of a significant odor impact represents a very conservative conclusion that is anticipated to substantially overstate the actual impact that is anticipated to occur. Any development on the Project site with sensitive receptors permitted under the existing General Plan and current Zoning would result in a similar air quality impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures consistent with Project objectives to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. Further, as discussed in Section X, Findings Regarding the Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, some Project alternatives have been rejected because they would have greater environmental impacts, including Alternative F, Alternate Site Plan. Additionally, the four alternative sites were all rejected from further study because: 1) they fail to meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project, specifically they are not infill development sites within an existing developed portion of the City, and thus cannot take advantage of serving existing communities in close proximity nor take advantage of existing infrastructure and public service systems; and 2) neither the Applicant for the proposed Project nor the City have ownership control of the four sites considered. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides an environmental impact report does not have to identify and analyze alternatives that would not meet a project's objectives nor does it have to discuss every possible permutation of alternatives. The City finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this unavoidable impact of the Project for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of these findings. IX. FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) require the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City Planning Department requires the City to monitor mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring Program includes all the mitigation measures identified in the Section V of the Final EIR and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring o~ OAK, 9q Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 75 of 84 rn CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINA, Program as described in full in Section V, Mitigation Monitoring Program, of the May 2010 Final EIR. The City finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Mitigation Monitoring Program designates responsibility for the implementation of mitigation for conditions within the jurisdiction of the City. Implementation of mitigation measures specified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program will be accomplished through Project planning and implementation, and monitoring and enforcement of these measures will be accomplished by periodic inspections by appropriate City departments. The City Planning Department reserves the right to make amendments and/or substitutions of mitigation measures if, in the exercise of discretion of the City Planning Department, it is determined that the amended or substituted mitigation measures will mitigate the identified potential environmental impact to at least the same degree as the original mitigation measure, and where the amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Seven alternatives to the Project were identified: A) No Project Alternative B) Revised Site Plan Alternative C) Reduced Density Alternative, and D) Increased Density Alternative. The four alternatives are briefly described below. A description of each alternative and the rationale for why the alternative was rejected is presented below. Alternative A: No Project As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative (Alternative A). Alternative A assumes that no Project is approved, no additional development occurs within the proposed Project site, existing land uses within the proposed Project site would remain unchanged, and no General Plan amendments or zone changes would occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the proposed Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, a former refinery, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. As such, the existing buildings, totaling approximately 7,600 square feet, would continue to function as they currently do. Internal circulation and parking would also remain unchanged. Relationship of Alternative A to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative A would not meet any of the basic objectives of the proposed Project. Alternative A was rejected because it would not meet the underlying objective of the Project to transform a underutilized site with a sustainable "high-quality" infill development that complements existing development trends in the area to provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. It also would not meet the objectives of maximizing development on the Project Site in a way that is compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial development. In addition, Alternative A would not locate commercial development in proximity to existing and/or planned [northwest Bakersfield] residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels, nor would it locate residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes. This alternative would not create a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment nor would it create a flexible, market-driven development that may respond to existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses. Alternative A would not encourage O~ ~AKF9cn Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 76 of 84 r CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL pedestrian activity, develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing parks and trails and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. Overall, under the Alternative A, the City-established objectives for the Project would not be attained and the Alternative is therefore inferior with respect to achieving the important Project objectives that would allow for an integrated, mixed use development that is compatible with surrounding uses and supportive of community needs. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts associated with the Project. The No Project Alternative's impacts on aesthetics, while not significant, would be greater than the proposed Project because benefits of the Project relative to policies pertaining to aesthetics as set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan would not be realized. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits associated with the Project's provision of jobs and housing. Therefore, the City finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed Project and rejects this alternative for the reasons stated above. Alternative B: Reduced Intensity The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative B) assumes a 25 percent reduction of all proposed Project land uses. Under this Alternative, the total commercial square footage would be reduced from 2,000,000 square feet to 1,500,000 square feet and the total number of dwelling units would be reduced from the 425 units to 319 units. The massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as all roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would be similar to the proposed Project under this Alternative. Other development characteristics (e.g., lighting, landscaping, and utility connections) are also assumed to be generally similar to those of the proposed Project, for the purpose of analyzing this Alternative. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative B. Relationship of Alternative B to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative B, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities. Alternative B would also develop a mix of commercial and residential uses, provide infill development, and create an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors. However, although this Alternative includes the same uses as the proposed Project, because this Alternative does not provide those uses in the same quantity as the proposed Project, this Alternative does not meet the objectives as well as the proposed Project. Alternative B was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, but would not provide the same opportunities for that the Project would for new housing and employment. Additionally, the this alternative would not create a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment nor would it create a flexible, market-driven development that may respond to existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses to the degree that the proposed Project would. While Alternative B would minimally reduce the largely site-specific impacts associated with urban decay, transportation/traffic, hazards and hazardous waste, air quality, noise, population, public services, and utilities and service systems, it would not eliminate these impacts. Further, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant, unavoidable traffic, air quality (i.e., odor) and noise impacts. While the Reduced Intensity Alternative, would fulfill the following Project objectives it would do so to a lesser extent than the proposed Project: gAKF O~ ~J Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 77 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations c ORIGINAI (1) transforming an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities; (2) locating commercial uses along transportation corridors; (3) developing a mix of commercial and residential uses; (4) providing infill development; and (5) creating an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors. The City has determined that the community benefits associated with the Project outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas that is associated with Alternative B. Furthermore, these minimal reductions do not outweigh the increased, and generally more community-wide impacts to air quality (odor), noise, and transportation/traffic, which would result from the development of Alternative B. Alternative C: Existing General Plan This Alternative assumes the maximum allowable development of the proposed Project site consistent with the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site. Thus, no General Plan amendments or zone changes would be needed to implement this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the majority of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road would be developed with low-density residential uses with a maximum of 687 dwelling units. In addition to residential uses, the proposed Project site would be developed with 525,000 square feet of commercial uses (40 percent office [210,000 square feet] and sixty percent retail [315,000 square feet], approximately the some ratio of office to retail uses as the proposed Project), 1,267,596 square feet of industrial uses, 175,000 square feet of public facilities, and 21 acres of open space and parks. Relationship of Alternative C to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative C, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. Thus, Alternative C would meet some of the basic objectives of the Project. However, with Alternative C only providing approximately 26 percent of the commercial development included within the proposed Project, Alternative C would achieve to a much lesser degree the proposed Project's basic objectives with regard to the following: (1) creating a flexible, market- driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Furthermore, this Alternative would The General Plan Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. This Alternative would increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a larger population and employee base that would result in greater demands for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries. Alternative C was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, but would bring residential uses and public facilities in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery, which may increase hazards. Alternative C would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. The City has determined that the community benefits associated with the Project far outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas",; A"k9 m Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 78 of 8~j o CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL that is associated with Alternative C. Furthermore, the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a larger population and employee base that would result in greater demands for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries and would be more noticeable on a community-wide basis and would offset any gains associated with the minimal reduction in other impact areas. Alternative D: Residential Alternative This Alternative assumes that only residential units would be developed on all portions of the proposed Project site including the portion of the site east of Coffee Road. This Alternative could yield up to a maximum of 1,429 low density residential dwelling units. The proposed size, massing, height, and design of the residential buildings would differ from the proposed Project as the residential units would be 1- to 2-story single-family homes and/or townhomes as compared to buildings of a much higher height and mass under the proposed Project. Roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would also differ. However, similar to the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative D. Relationship of Alternative D to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative D would meet the proposed Project's basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; creating an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; and develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. However, and more importantly, Alternative D would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) creating a flexible, market- driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; and (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Furthermore, this Alternative would bring residential uses in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery. Alternative D was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, but may increase hazards as it would bring residential uses and public facilities in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery, the source of significant and unavoidable odor impacts. Alternative D would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. The City has determined that the community benefits associated with the Project far outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas that is associated with Alternative D. Furthermore, the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a larger population and employee base that would result in greater demands for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries and would be more noticeable on a community-wide basis and would offset any gains associated with the minimal reduction in other impact areas. Alternative E: Industrial Alternative This Alternative assumes that 3,070,980 square feet of industrial uses would be developed on all portions of the proposed Project site. This level of industrial development corresponds to a site coverage of 30 percent with one-story buildings. OAKF Consistent with current industrial development in the City, anticipated industrial uses to o~ ~LP Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 79 of 84 ` nRIGIN,4I CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations be developed as part of this Alternative include warehouse and distribution facilities as well as light manufacturing. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative E. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative E as noted. Relationship of Alternative E to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative E would meet the proposed Project's basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. However, and more importantly, Alternative E would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) create a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; (5) create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; and (6) develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the city's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. Alternative E was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, but may increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a greater demand for utilities. Alternative E would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. The City has determined that the community benefits associated with the Project for outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas that is associated with Alternative E. Furthermore, the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a larger population and employee base that would result in greater demands for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries and would be more noticeable on a community-wide basis and would offset any gains associated with the minimal reduction in other impact areas. Alternative F: Alternative Site This Alternative would consist of developing the proposed Project as proposed at an alternative location. The site identified as the proposed Project's "Alternative Site" is the proposed West Ming site, located west of Buena Vista Road and south of the Kern River in Southwest Bakersfield. The West Ming site is approximately 2,182 acres and is currently used for agricultural and oil production activities. The site is zoned for the West Ming Specific Plan (a neighborhood design community) that is not yet under construction. The West Ming project proposes 7,450 residential units, 478,800 square feet of commercial (including office, service, and retail) 331,200 square feet of town center commercial and mixed use (including office, service, and retail), and 1,135,000 square feet of special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public transportation, and office). Based on the size of the West Ming site it has been determined that the West Ming site is large enough to accommodate both the West Ming project as it is currently proposed as well as the land uses of the proposed Project. As such, the portion of the West Ming site that could accommodate the proposed Project's land uses would be developed with 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses, 425 residential dwelling units, and 4 acres of parks and open space. o~ OAK,Fq Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 80 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAP The proposed Project site at Coffee Road and Brimhall Road would not be developed and the physical conditions of the proposed Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, a former refinery, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. Relationship of Alternative F to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative F would meet some of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would locate new commercial uses along transportation corridors; establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; and create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play. On the other hand, Alternative F would not implement several of the Project's key basic objectives, particularly as they apply to northwest Bakersfield, in terms of the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of [northwest] Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned [northwest Bakersfield] residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) provide a sustainable, infill development by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. Alternative F was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, and would result in significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. The City has determined that the community benefits associated with the Project far outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas that is associated with Alternative F. Alternative G: Residential Alternative This Alternative would consist of developing the Project as proposed while also realigning Brimhall Road to run through the Project site. The size, massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as other characteristics (e.g. lighting, landscaping, and utility connections), and associated grading and drainage improvements would be developed as proposed at the Project site. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative G. Relationship of Alternative G to the Project Objectives & Rationale for Rejection Alternative G, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities. Alternative G would also develop a mix of commercial and residential uses and provide infill development. Alternative G, however, would not create an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors to the same extent as the proposed Project. The proposed Project presents a predominantly self-contained mixed-use development that insulates pedestrians from the surrounding thoroughfares. Alternative G, in contrast, would realign Brimhall Road to run through the project site. Directing Brimhall Road through the project site could increase pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and, therefore, would not meet the project goal or objective of creating a walkable environment to encourage visitors and residents to walk throughout the commercial center to the same degree as the proposed Project. Accordingly, Alternative G would not meet the proposed Project goals and objects to the same degree as the proposed Project. Alternative G was rejected, on the whole, because it generates similar environmental impacts as those of the Project, and would result in significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. Further, directing Brimhall Road through the Project site could increase pedestrian-vehicle conflicts; therefore, the City has determined that the community o~ 0AKF9~ Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 81 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL benefits associated with the Project far outweigh the minimal reduction in environmental impacts to the aforementioned areas that is associated with Alternative F. XI. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS Growth Inducing Impacts of Proposed Project Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth- inducing impacts include the removal of obstacles to population growth (e.g., the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant allowing more development in a service area) and the development and construction of new service facilities that could significantly effect the environment individually or cumulatively. In addition, growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. The Project would involve the infill development of a currently mostly vacant parcel in the City of Bakersfield. Project development would result in an increase of approximately 1.4 million square feet of commercial uses and 425 residential units. The expansion of the commercial uses and the construction of office and residential uses would not be considered growth-inducing because it would not cause a progression of growth beyond the Project itself. As the Project site is located in an urbanized area, new infrastructure or an extension of the current infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities), and community service facilities (e.g., police, fire, schools, and libraries) would not be expanded beyond the needs of the Project; and therefore would not induce off-site population growth. Commercial and office uses would increase the number of employees, though no growth-inducing impacts beyond the direct effects of the expansion of employees would result. Project generated population growth would not exceed the established regional forecast for the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern. Therefore, the Project would not foster economic or population growth in the surrounding area. Significant Irreversible Impacts of Proposed Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) state that: "[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the Project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified." The Project would necessarily consume limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This consumption would occur during the construction phase of the Project and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. This new development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the Project Site. Construction of the Project would require the consumption of resources that are not replenishable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: certain types of lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand, gravel and stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials such as plastics; and water. Fossil fuels gAK F Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 82 of 84 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations gRIGINA1,1_', such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment, as well as the transportation of goods and people to and from the Project Site. The resources that would be committed during operation of the Project would be similar to those currently consumed within the City of Bakersfield and on surrounding the Project Site. These would include energy resources such as electricity, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle-trips, fossil fuels, and water. Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both construction and ongoing operation of the Project, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Operation of the Project would occur in accordance with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, which sets forth conservation practices that would limit the amount of energy consumed by the Project. In addition, the Project would be subject to energy efficient planning and construction guidelines as set forth by the City of Bakersfield. In addition, the Project would be designed and constructed to achieve certification under the LEED Rating System established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote sustainability. Despite conservation practices and guidelines in energy conservation, commitment to the use of the nonrenewable resources would be long-term. The limited use of potentially hazardous materials, including cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping would used and stored on the Project Site. These materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and applicable government standards and regulations. In addition, demolition activities would comply with regulatory requirements to ensure that asbestos and lead-based paints are not released into the environment. Compliance with such regulations would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials. Similarly, mitigation has been included to address any hazardous materials discovered construction, thereby avoiding any significant environmental change that could occur as a result of environmental accidents during construction. In sum, construction and operation of the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project. However, continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale and would be consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. As a result, the use of nonrenewable resources would not result in significant irreversible changes to the environment. XII. APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Bakersfield hereby takes the following actions: A. The City Council hereby certifies: (1) it was provided with the Draft EIR, Final EIR and technical reports; (2) it reviewed and considered the information in the EIR; (3) the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; and (4) the EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis. B. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR. C. The City Council hereby adopts as conditions of approval of the Project each of the Project features referenced in the final EIR and all mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City set forth in the findings. D. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as set forth above. $AK, 9q 9, Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 83 of 84- m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~,~RIGINAL~ E. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts these findings and determinations contained in "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" in their entirety as a part of its findings and determinations for these actions and approvals. F. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the statement of overriding considerations included with its findings and determinations contained in "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations". G. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Planning Department to make amendments and/or substitutions of mitigation measures if, in the exercise of discretion of the City Planning Department, it is determined that the amended or substituted mitigation measures will mitigate the identified potential environmental impact to at least the same degree as the original mitigation measure, and where the amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. H. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated mitigation measures into the Project, and adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations, the City Council hereby approves the Bakersfield Commons Project. KS-S:\GPAs\GPA 3rd 2009\06-1877 (Bakersfield Common EIR)\Reso_Ord\PC_Reso ZC 06-1877.doc oX`~AKF9 s Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 84 of 84 r-- 0 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAiI- Exhibit C Statement of Overriding Considerations O~~AKF9-~, ~~l3AiC~I~IAI~ STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The Final EIR has identified unavoidable significant impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the completed EIR and/or other information in the record. State CEQA Guidelines require, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), that the decision maker adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations at the time of approval of a Project if it finds that significant adverse environmental effects have been identified in the EIR which cannot be substantially mitigated to an insignificant level or be eliminated. These findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the EIR, the reference library to the EIR, and documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur without the Project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less than significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This statement of overriding considerations is based on the City review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Draft EIR and the Technical Appendix. ~gAKF9 d Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 1 of 9 _ I Statement of Overriding Considerations v ORIGINA!. Impacts from Proposed Project As stated in Section VI above, and the EIR, the following impacts are not mitigated to a less than significant level for the proposed Project, as identified in the EIR: transportation/traffic (intersection and street segment impacts), air quality (odors), and noise (operational). It is not feasible to mitigate such impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation/Traffic Project and Cumulative Intersection Impacts Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below the significance criteria adopted by the City of Bakersfield. However, as discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, as requested by the City the proposed Project was also analyzed using a second impact criterion that this Draft EIR refers to as the City's Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria. Furthermore, and also at the City's request, an additional analysis of intersections along Rosedale Highway was conducted using an alternative analysis methodology that provide signal green-time priority to east-west traffic along the Rosedale corridor - the Green-Time Priority Analysis. As set forth under the Green- Time Priority Analysis conducted under the City of Bakersfield's adopted significance criteria and the Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria, with the exception of two intersections during afternoon peak hours, the proposed Project would not have a significant impact at any of the studied intersections. Significant and unavoidable impacts at the following two intersections would remain even after Project development Phase I (Year 2015) & II (Year 2035) mitigation measures are in place: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway Furthermore, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project Phase. Project and Cumulative Street Segment Impacts Using the City of Bakersfield's criteria for significant impacts on street segments, the Project's traffic would result in significant and unavoidable impacts according to the three phases of the Project development. Phase I (Year 2015) In opening year conditions no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate street segment impacts; therefore, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria at the following four analyzed street segments: • Street Segment #47, Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue AK 0 F9 Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 2 of 9~ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ~ORIGINAL~ • Street Segment #61, Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway • Street Segment #65, California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft EIR, they would exceed the City's design standards. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue along the impacted segments would require the removal of many multi-story office and residential buildings that line the two street segments (i.e., Street Segments #47 and #65) and would eliminate landscaping along the sidewalks. Widening of Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #61) would require the replacement or widening of a bridge over a canal as well as the removal of several retail buildings on the west side of Coffee Road. However, the impacts to Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (Street Segment #47) and on California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #65) are considered temporary in nature. These locations would not be impacted upon completion of the Westside Parkway. Phase I & II (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria at the following two analyzed street segments: • Street Segment # 14, Coffee Road north of Hageman Road • Street Segment #28, Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway • Street Segment #31, Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street • Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, they would exceed the City's design standards. Further, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), cannot be mitigated even by exceeding the City's standard design using the reduced capacity for added lanes specified by the City; however, if the additional lane were assigned the full capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day per lane, no significant impact would remain under the City's impact criteria. The widening of Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) is infeasible due to the number of private residences along the east side of the street and utility towers lining the west side of the street immediately beyond the gutter. The addition of one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway (Street Segment #28) would encroach at the Friant-Kern Canal and would remove landscaping and parking. The widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the area would be significant to residents. Adding one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street to mitigate impacts on Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk (Street Segment #31) would require at least 12 feet of right-of-way acquisition from each side of Rosedale Highway for a distance of approximately half a mile. The acquisition of this property would have extensive impacts to local businesses on the south side of Rosedale highway. It would require parking loss and lot reconfiguration at numerous commercial and industrial properties along this stretch. Additionally, along the north side of the street, underground oil field utilities could be affected. Power lines on the gAK~c Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 3 of 9 0 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 ORIGINAic south and communication lines on the north would need to be removed and relocated to accommodate the widening. The widening would also have negative impacts on noise levels and air quality in the vicinity, as the traffic would be closer to the existing businesses on the south side of Rosedale Highway. As such, no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the impacts at these four locations (i.e., Street Segments #14, #28, #31, #44 and #77), which would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. Phase I, II & III (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II & III), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria at the following analyzed street segments: • Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road • Street Segment #62. Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, they would exceed the City's design standards. Further, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), cannot be mitigated even by exceeding the City's standard design using the reduced capacity for added lanes specified by the City; however, if the additional lane were assigned the full capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day per lane, no significant impact would remain under the City's impact criteria. Adding one lane in each direction from Kroll Way to Stockdale Highway to mitigate impacts on Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #62) would require the extensive right-of-way acquisition, resulting in the removal of up to 11 single family homes on the east side of Gosford Road. It would also cause a significant change to the character of the street. As Gosford Road passes through an upscale residential neighborhood, it provides a tree-lined median, bike lanes on each side of the street, and a meandering walking path on the west side of the street. These amenities would need to be condensed or removed to allow room for the additional travel lanes, having significant aesthetic and recreational impacts. This would further have the effect of bringing fast-moving traffic closer to homes, along with the additional noise and air quality deterioration that brings. Further, the west side of Gosford Road currently houses four electrical boxes and three utility vaults that would need to be removed and relocated to make space for the additional lanes. As such, no feasible improvement could be identified to fully mitigate impacts at these locations (i.e., Street Segments #44 and #62), which would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. Air Quality Project Odor Impacts Due to the proximity of the proposed residential uses at the Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), the residential uses would likely be exposed to odors generated daily at the refinery. As discussed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, due to past odor complaints documented by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District at this refinery, a significant impact associated with objectionable odors would occur at the proposed on-site residential uses. There are currently no feasible mitigation measures available that can be implemented by the Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 4 of 9 ~AKF9 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations fi J r- ORIGINAL proposed Project to eliminate or reduce these odors. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, it is important to note that since the area's prevailing winds originate from the northwest and the Project Site is located to the west of the Big West refinery, it is unlikely that the Project's residential uses would experience odor impacts attributable to Big West's emissions. Noise Project Operational Impacts Significant roadway noise impacts during Phase II and III operations along two roadway segments (Brimhall Road east of Calloway Drive; and Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road). Cumulative Operational Impacts Significant cumulative noise impacts at one roadway segment (i.e., Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road) during Phase I, II and III operations. Project Benefits Despite having significant unavoidable environmental impacts, the Project is being proposed to allow the construction of the smallest environmental footprint and with the greatest amount of open space area, to provide needed housing and employment opportunities to City residents, and to provide amenities to City residents and visitors. Accordingly, the City adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the Project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected alternatives to the Project discussed above, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the Project against the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, the City hereby finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. The below stated reasons summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the proposed Project, and provide, in addition to the above findings, the detailed rationale for the benefits of the Project. These overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the Project justify adoption of the Project and certification of the completed Final EIR. Many of these overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the Project and justify adoption of the Project and certification of the completed EIR. In particular, achieving the underlying purpose for the Project would be sufficient to override the significant environmental impacts of the Project. The City finds that the following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of the Bakersfield Commons Project: 1. The Project would promote urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. The Project's mix of uses would be built around a "main street" concept and retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional "main street" to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 5 of 9~,M CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9%P m ORIGINAL 2. The Project would transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. 3. The Project would create an inviting lifestyle retail center that integrates the diversity of proposed uses and meets the needs of the surrounding community. 4. The Project would complement existing development trends in the area including a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment. 5. The Project would provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City through creation of a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses to serve various users (e.g., residents, workers, tourists, visitors). 6. The Project would establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of the on-site residents and improve the jobs-housing balance. The placement of a residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes would promote a walkable environment that reduces vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels. This walkable environment includes parks, trails, open space, and linkages to the City's existing park system, accommodating the recreational needs of residents. 7. The Project would promote an environmentally sensitive balance of uses through incorporation of pedestrian scale design components into landscaped linkages along with grassy swales for improving water quality, landscaped areas for the detention and retention of drainage flows to improve water quality, greenscape and hardscape to soften the surrounding built environment, and bikeways, separate and distinct from walking paths. 8. The Project would be an infill development that promotes the sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building. The Project incorporates many sustainable design features and will seek certification from the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) for, at a minimum, the retail components. A fundamental aspect of the Project's design would be the incorporation of sustainable practices in site development and building design. This Project design component could include the use of alternative energy sources, as well as energy conserving principles. Vegetation, trees, and structures would be used to create shaded walkways and shelters as well as the use of water features to cool and shade the outdoor experience for the pedestrian. Shading in portions of the parking areas also would be accomplished through structures that incorporate solar panels for green power as well as shading. Daylighting, views to the outdoors, and features such as shading devices, broad roof overhangs and similar architectural elements as well as other sustainable, "green" practices would be utilized throughout the Project. Compliance with state laws regarding water and energy conservation, including Title 24, also would result in increased efficiency and sustainability. 0pKF Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 6 of CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations nRIRNAL~ 9. Development of the Project in an established urban center served by existing infrastructure would minimize the need for the development of new infrastructure and make more efficient use of existing facilities. 10. The Project will facilitate a reduction of vehicle trips (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) by implementing a Transportation Demand Management Plan designed to reduce single driver car trips by employees, shoppers and residents. The TDM Plan will facilitate and incentivize the use of alternative means of transportation, support formation of a Transportation Management Organization for all of Century City, and explore formation of a Century City shuttle or circulator. 11. By introducing residential uses in close proximity to shopping, dining, entertainment and jobs, and in close proximity to transit, pedestrian paths, and a network of bicycle routes, the Project will reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. 12. The Project would provide improvements to the vehicular and pedestrian movements through the construction of new sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes, and transit facilities on site. The addition of on-site circulation improvements would include an interior east-west roadway linking Coffee Road (at the existing signalized intersection) to the future El Toro Viejo Road, thereby creating a backbone for on-site circulation as well as the "main street" focus for the Project. The Project would also provide a network of bike trails and lanes, which would be separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, as appropriate, as well as bike racks throughout the site. The bike trails would be designed to link with future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. 13. The Project would also provide open space to meet the recreational and aesthetic needs of Project residents, visitors, and occupants, while providing a buffer between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the south. Portions of the transmission corridor would be used as landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, drainage areas, surface parking, and other compatible uses. Statement The City hereby finds that approval of the Bakersfield Commons Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to transportation/traffic (intersection and street segment impacts), air quality (odors), and noise (operational). For the reasons presented in Section VIII, Findings Regarding Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures for Significant Environmental Impacts of this document, the City finds that these unmitigable impacts are outweighed by the Project benefits described above and, therefore, are acceptable. Furthermore, as presented in Section X, Findings Regarding Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this document, while some of the Project alternatives would reduce some of the adverse impacts associated with the Project and meet some of the objectives of the Project, the amount of benefits provided by the alternatives would be less than the Project and/or would increase adverse impacts associated with other environmental issue areas. Therefore, on balance, the benefits provided by each of the alternatives would be less than those provided by the Project. Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 7 of 9 J~'b AK CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - m 7 O ')RIGIMAL The City further finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to less than significant levels, there are specific economic, social, planning, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. Moreover, the City finds that where more than one reason exists for any findings, the City finds that each reason independently supports these findings, and that any reason in support of a given finding individually constitutes a sufficient basis for that finding. Record of Proceedings Various documents and other materials, including the Final EIR, constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Documentation related to this Project is located at the City offices as follows: The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210 Independent Judgment Third party consultants hired by the City prepared the Draft EIR, Final EIR and technical reports. These documents and all materials related thereto were extensively reviewed and, where appropriate, modified by the City. As such, the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the lead agency. Project Conditions of Approval Each of the Project features and mitigation measures referenced herein shall be conditions of Project approval to be monitored and enforced by the City pursuant to the building permit process and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. To the extent applicable, each of the other findings and conditions of approval made by or adopted by the City in connection with its approval of the Project is also incorporated herein by this reference. Summary 1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following findings with respect to significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment. b. No feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR would reduce impacts to relative to transportation/traffic (intersections and street segments), air quality (odor) and noise (operational) resources. C. Furthermore, specific economic considerations and environmental impacts with respect to aesthetics, air quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation/circulation and utilities Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 8 of 9,~ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - m ORIGINAL make infeasible the Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project. 2. Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that: a. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, above. 3. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, and in the record of proceedings in the matter. KS://-S:\GPAs\GPA 3rd 2009\06-1877 (Bakersfield Common EIR)\CC\STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.docx Bakersfield Commons Project (GPA/ZC #06-1877) Page 9 of 9 o`~~AKF9(P CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations y m v o ORIGINAL Exhibit D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program O~~AK~9.n ~ORIGINAt MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A. MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS This document is the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed Bakersfield Commons Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change [GPA/ZC] 06-1877) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield. The MMP includes a brief discussion of the legal basis for and the purpose of the program, discussion, and direction regarding complaints about noncompliance, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, and the monitoring matrix itself. B. LEGAL BASIS OF AND PURPOSE FOR THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM California Public Resources Code §21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The MMP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR prepared for the Bakersfield Commons Project. It is intended to be used by City of Bakersfield (City) staff, participating agencies, the developer, project contractors, and mitigation monitoring personnel during implementation of the proposed Project. Mitigation is defined by State CEQA Guidelines § 15370 as a measure that does any of the following: • Avoids impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. • Rectifies impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. • Reduces or eliminates impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project. • Compensates for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary, on-site identification and resolution of environmental problems, and proper reporting to City staff. C. MITIGATION MONITORING TABLE Table V-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, identifies the mitigation measures proposed for the Bakersfield Commons Project. These mitigation measures ~gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Final Environmental Impact Report Page I of 37 JORIGINAL GPA/ZC # 06-1877 City of Bakersfield June 2, 2010 are reproduced from the EIR and conditions of approval for the Project. The table has the following columns: Mitigation Measure/Summary of Measure: Lists the mitigation measures identified within the EIR for a specific impact, along with the number for each measure enumerated in the EIR. Implementation Phase: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measures will be completed. Monitoring Phase: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measures will be monitored. Enforcing Agency: References the City department or any other public agency with which coordination is required to satisfy the identified mitigation measure. Verification of Compliance: Spaces to be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to a specific mitigation measure. D. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Project. The complaint shall be directed to the City in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The City shall conduct an investigation to determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with a mitigation measure has occurred, the City shall take appropriate action to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. go AKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project Mitigation Monitoring Program: R, Final Environmental Impact Report Page 2 of 3~GRIGINAL GPA/ZC # 06-1877 O cV _ _ 0 c ! c u O I z CL ° 75 U 0 E N I Y o YI 3 O l MU a) CL a c 3> 3 0 3 0 _0 -0 > > u Uo Up > 3i E :5 I~ > 4-~0 ,a ~Q o a-Q o ~Q o ci- Q o :5I a- 0 0-0 m o C y' c 0 c h 0. o 4-Z -Q ~ N O p ~c O O m~ ° U O'= V -0 O d > N o 0 C) rn oa o 0-0 u7C) ?a) 4- CL O O N u C,4 c C 700 _ 00 0 ~.-0Q- 3 0 a E 0 1 c~ mmo 0 3 0 3 U E o C c 0 0 O o = m p O c° E o °O U o a c o Q` ~I N N <n Q~ -5 -a QOM O~ N V E 2 Q) Q) O -a 0 0 vi ( Q Q) 1-9 N a- C N U6 0 >,.C (D -0 0 Q2 Q O C C c 06 c -0 a) C: 1 -0 c U OaC E ° p Z off C O , w a O U I co I ° a Z 0 N h N 0 p O a_ N -0 0!5 C I p E N O N~ COL N O O O)Ol NI N~ } 1 c- c O c 0 Q) o C3 u 0 .2) Q) U ° Q N o D N c q p o N et N It N-0 Sri C U E o U.~ o U c° C U o~ nr~; C) i l v c ORIrINAI O N O i cot m O 'fl ( j ap U ~w u ~ a - - - j - - c C v I o tip ~ ~ c , I ~ ~ a ~ I m CL © y i U V 0 3 V)~ o H 0 :1 v a) o ° 'C o-0 0-0 a) 0 a) ~o 30 uo V 3> ~o "0 u n. a Cl o o o o Q Q Q 'c a- 0 - Q S y C I U > ?~c .0 7 0 o ° o v rn h :t a) c r pa)03 ~c~ ~'E~ .0 ~'ccL paw O me 0-a N p ~°a) c o U c C p p p c N 0.5 3 C)° _o (1) of p m ~ a) p) ~ U a) p W O U^` 0 2 41 2 ~5) (1) F) } v pca)a Oa U N~ a a-0 0 0 p a) N oo a N c O C) 0 a) -C C) 4- 0 O O1 3 a) N U p L- C) 0 P C: 7C) u 0 C) w~-p(1)N a)70CP° ma)} ° -a a)o4- N ~oo•L a c H p q t N c j c c 3 ° Q C° >,c N Q~ v v ; c ~p-0 cH ~-0 ~a)a 0-Q cc u~ -c p p p p U vi c O 0 O O O _g I: O C(D C L- p U a ai p p p) c E U0p N ~„a°c 05°C pa~o ~p~ Oa c O O p N' O p 0 o E 0 'D C: 0 ~c :g c c °}'p c a) ~ N mac; co -C: ce Q) 0 m a~o~ ~o- "'33~ a~ 3 0:3~~ ~K U o E~a)a -C a) oNa~ a) roc-0 o cp! } ~o U} o o . LD) -C _0 4- Ln C) U - - m - nRIGINAI 0 - clq C O E V j ( j o CL a ° i d c I O O C CL 0) C! ~ E - 0 N N N >1 ` Y - o 0-0 -0 o u 0 a) a) 3> 3> 3 3; 3a-0,' vo , u o L) "o Uo Uo E d. ~a D Cl D Q ~a -0a O CL Q O CL Q O CL Q D c o CL < ~Q o c. o ode 0 c v vs _o -C 0 C: c Cc: p a) U D a) ~ N ~ ° ° c -9 u 0- (D 2 a) O O c c `n c C C c c .o c- O c c-C C: -C 0 0) -0 -C 0 oN-0 o) o 0 -0 0) r OO COI 3 OC C° 0) -cc al O 0 0 0 a) o U o o ~ a) L ~Ln 33~o Qc o ~ oCc: ~a) =mo o ° - L° ° } De ° L D C i N _0 a) > O) ° : O 0) D m C C p) --F a) ~ a) ~ ° Q~ = x O a) ° C H C -0 > C C cl; C X ° C a) ° c -0 m ° OU O) F- 0 -0 D 06 L H a) L Q) p L U 0) o Z) Q~} 3 a) - 06 } c a) o a -C 7C) U3c U0c -C U~m p oU~CI3v ~I E~Lo H S O°(D° U° a)° JE oa)- E o~°I 0 W- c _0 C: u c '00 m p a) p N cV U U o U U 0 -0 0) C4 -c- D V Q t U d- ? Q) Q° D Q L a) j O O~ NILI _ -e.. 0 -r- O C O > ~c O ORIGINAL 0 v ~ I ~ m o ~to 10 U ocl- c 0-0 a i to ~ N N ~ In ~ ~ V CL > 3 a) ~ N 3 0 3 N F a?9Q a OU O ~o a z a ~ a Q a- Q o CL¢ o D Q o a~ Q o ~ CL o~ ~ c I v i o oo~ 3om= o o N i O C --C O o c N C -C U a N Lm N O C o O O c+ N oc co O Dc-C = N~ N 3~ O~i C: Do a) N N p) ` C a C N~ L O o D o p c 0 U O U N O O as~ } p-C mC m Qm` ci a) n Qp p c C O O O W> o O o o N N p N O m` 0 3 0~= ~C N o 3 3 a °I 3 U O> ~ !5 p o 06 's, C 2 O j o- ~ U-, O a O C X p~ C O- N o -pp U C)-0 7C) i2 ~ U o C p CO U O -0 Ln C3 -0 V) N C d- C 4~ C3 o C ` ; j 0 U p N C C p p n L U D a m N C O od C) 06 ° !5 ~ S of ° a o > LI O- C aU~somo ~~L~ ~u ct U. a-, -p • i c C U p a p~I O D N O~ Ln E a o a) 0--9 c o o° ~ aUi ol ° a p C O 0-a) O` 0) , O p o 0 N N E p U 3 c N O 3 N o N c ao D -C 112 O N- N. C N 4- C 4= C E y o C O -0 N-E , 7-) C) j C C o a Z) 0 o' U c oo a a UU'>D Q~~O1~~ UC~oiUEo~ UV, o a 2~ -0 ~ C) -0 pal W) 2 "4 -d a) 2 00 C) a o 6 C U o m C C U o m p U D C ^ C O U - c- `~U- N o~ C U~-c_ U- CI v ° c: ca IJGINAI 0 ) - C i E I I I ` s m c a o U ! c . ' N N Q sm 3-0 6-0 0-0 ~0-0 u a > > 3> U O U O U p U O 0.9 E TD L- -Z a o CL Q o a- Q o CLQ o ~ Q- a C - 1 - - - o 0 CL 0 Cy as a c i ! c a o~ c o~ j a o~c I 0~c 0 I °c N O 4- I N p O m p <n O o O O O ! O C zz~ -0 ` 2 -0 -0 C: a) -0 1 1 O} c d p N c 0 0 a N O C) ~ -C C L 3 L C-L ! p oc 3~ ~..NO~p ~0 a) -C ~ N C) N O N C C O O z } ~ C O N N p C O N 5- C a N- C C -9 C a o (D ac °C ~oC: X o 0) ce p c N O O N(D ° i ( p~ a N O I O~.S~ p) p~.~~ O) dS~ U C: C L N U O C c p c C N-C N _ O Q p a N N > p O > O O D o N O N U I c Q Q a 3 m a o o ~o ° Q o may ° ° oN 0)cO c ~ 0 Q) co> U0> i aO bi ? c -0 C: _0 0 c 0~ a" c - O\ Q~ C o 9 c u o0 O C~ D N N'j_ U U O 6_O U U O O p UOI _ N N ,U O C -0 O a Z) N N 4'- C p C N L U CV , N U H M O _ N N N C N C N Q- N > N - 5ni* 0 C I O O ~ ~ I I I ! ! t N I ~ a ° O 0 ~ ~ I (c -.v I O 3 0-0 0-0 0-0 I 0-0 ! 3 > ° ICI 3 > 3 > 3 u > uo 0o uo Igo ~j a.~ TD Q ~ .n Q N I~ flQ v > Q >Q- c DQ c > ~Q o CL Q o a Q o CL. Q o a~ ~ ~j o Z a O C O N c~ ~c -I- c1) C m I O O O L i c C U O a) c 0 N D'~ a) c O 5 p N O O O C O C O c 0>co0c L o ~ a ~~I~v a) 7C) O 'O U v' 0-1-- a c > p O U O'j ~4- a) O-O p>C O C O E C) O c O U vi Q Q O Q `o 7C) a) O O U c N~ c 06 c -C E) 0 -0 C O~ a) O O 2) ~!5 p°p. I -O N Q~ c) C: -It O u O _P) O O a) a) o p O cc 0 Q O C: -0 C: -r- 2 cc aj 0 a O N N ~ - O O o- N i= c p p~ N b N C a O m~ y > U j t"n D a) a) -2 0 IS (D -C O Wc~c0 ° °-r- N o a I 31 Q) O O O (1) m - O a)-a (3) ,(3) 06 -0 c O O p O Q) -g 2 O N N u c :9 C UO p C h06 O U D (D Q a) c Q Q Q N a) 0 Z) o O o O a) ' p} p 0 0 p N O E a r ~U~Q -r 8 U3~ cam, N O C: O 0 O _0 n C O O O O O o _C: 3 0 N Lei In - . •c - n Q H ad 1tc U N O) a) Q` O N Q L N O C-0 N a) O U a) D N p u~i C .S ° U m ORIGINAl 0 N cn 0 ~ JE ` 0) o a a V Ci- O u 3CL i a N N N o ; o~ o ° u > 3> 3> ~ u O Uo IUO u o E Q ° Q- C, > Q o CL Q O CL Q o Ca ~a o a-Q rn a p V ! v CL v rn O N p j 7C) (D ;t O p O C O) -0 c _Q 7C3 _C F- - ~ C p O > j -0 C j C p, ° U C) N} C U C) O p > O Q 7C3 O N C) N -C a) 2 OC L N G c p O> U U..2 N - p C U 4- C N p p C-C j y- N U C CV U C Q ;U c c aim '~0_ o ~ a'° o °~i o 0 C: -0 > Q) CD C: 0 C: -0 4~ C) c -C (A > N C O N O > c= - -0_r -0 -0 p c a O O N 2 ~U a) uQo°> ~.u>occc a~N~o o>~ N c c > o O -0 o C: C p> Q) o-0 c olf o O c -0 6- c 0 N a) 0 a Z) a a)-0 p c°} p > N U ° I>/o~~ a~ Deo/~Z) Coc~ -6 oC C) cow 0° ~otC 0) >o-o}~F-0 _rZ (D CL .m aooa0 ~jQool c Q p° c~ 3> > a p -0 cZ) o 0 0) 1 V) 4- c C: (D o'0 0) _00 U c70 c--0° oa3EC v 3 0E Y ;_t 5 E m N c E p~ 0 c~ 6 E a-2C3) 0 '5 E p U co m U a U> ~ c p ~ O)o ~ ~ 0~~ m U-Q) _0 p p, p> 6 N C° C Z) -0 N 0 C p C A~i~C U 0 4- Q) N d~ 0 C: M Q-0 O N M Q-0 > O M Q~ I O 12 LD) a) ~ .N U E *3 -c o U E p 3-~ a U E a o U E o U - -J ~ SRI(; N AL 0 M c I- m m O z E I I c° v I I I .E' o 0 ..f j c O i c as s 0 1+ 3 3-0 ;5-0 > > a~ v ' a u a o E c a a O o- Q O a-Q oIELQ o c - - b- I c h I a cu ~ m ~ c v ~ 0) 06 0 Q) 70 -0 :2 C j U O C C } } co QL O > a) O p t p N O p O O O C Q~ C U u 4 p 5 CO 3 ~ ,n c F' C 0 -EE 2).-0 -0W c °Q (1) a) U 'oop(1) c p = >C a~o~ L, 0 o~ 3 "-0) U a) h ~ ~ac3 mE o Ln c o °6 u -C E o ~-c a }-C} y C a)p , in c v o p~~o -0).i oQ p o.m~ U m~ C p C p y O C 4- ~n U_C O p O O p a) p Q Q cn p a) Q H~ vi O -0 p -C O O U a) od 0 N Q- C p. U c O C C C =O 0 O C: -0 u C p C O p L 6) 'n O) U _ -0 C)) U C m t p u C~ a) c a, o~ 3~~0~ 0 E30 z~a~o° LV-l Q) Z) o N p : C c w a)'O U p U co m ~ O m o O V) a p vi p p p O 0 A (D u E O 7ca) V ) CV : :p i Y"'O CL U 3 V ORIG q ~ C~ 0 7 _ _ M 10 c t? Z C p - - -I v o 0 r Lr- a u 0-0 > 3:a) 0-0 O~ °0 u 3 u g) o ° ' 3 > 3 > v o o a a a s 4 a- o C¢ o CQ o 0 ¢ o CLQ n. o C li I I om a °C > h 4! C v ~ -Qc o ~ ~ ~ .n El c v N O- O U N c p v v 0 o pN Np p N0 p 0-a c Q- C C C O U D no N c C ° M N c N -p W. C C p O a p u? N .6 O p C ~ o D m~ c o~ 3 o E o u >I 3~aI o~3mo a~~~a~Q} 3a~a 01 Q1 ac o v DC m = c 0).C: of °o~--C °°oo~ p> o o > Q c O a N N D} 0 o in O -0 c C) t u m ° u ~ Q c o 2 a) ~-o- Z u° o~~ a) -0 oo- ° w >3p~ No-mac oop ° 0 O _X ln 9 N O o N {/7 ~ Q Q) O 06 O L V W ] 06 N p C N O V) -0 O m Q O 0 O Q O 5) U Q° m N 0 N 0 a p N'Q Q~ N Q N d~ Q~ [Ec' `p v c o- p o 3•- H Z a) Lo C° o, ° c c N C C N -a a) c o~o0 -C Q) E N p -0 C O ~ 0 O -Az > N O p U U a) N N ~ N° O°° 0c 3mo.4- >m 0.9 6 6 o _ O M - M Cl M L- -0 p 0- a ib W UpUo~UE C: a~U~~U° - - - - ORIGINAL C) a CT 0) o E' I ct N U° I c a c - _o CL (D - ----11 u 3 46 0 a) a Oa 0-0 V', -Q `0-0 `70 'o0 30 ~jI 3; 0 L) ~U c U O U o l E o.~ c ~ Q c Qa m oa To n-1 O a Q O ~Q O ;j ac) LC C: < olCL< rt- O Q" Q) C d ,n ° Q) O 0 CL.9 U O G) c G D Cf N U c 70 E) ~ o' --I 1 4-- o r°~ 0 a CE Q~ I7D o~ 70 o V; acs LC}a)~ a Q3 p c N ~U O Q) .9)o-t-- c c C1 C Q O 2 O Q Q p N° I o O ` o mu o~ Q o c 0 a 3~ Q~ 0 0 tea) ~y- Q t ° 2 I N Q ~~m a ~ o ~ i~~ N ~~4 ~ ~ ° Q 2 0 U l N 06 N O Q to O O p p O C 2 Q O ~Q O -a O U N a 0` O N O C d C Q N Ln o 4- -0 In 0 V Ql N O L in 0 C Q } 0 O "a) C: - a) C: N c~a i~~c~ oQna~o~° o~N 3c c D O c c -0 U o o01- o-,. a) oo ova I~° ~C-L ~ ~~o oQ0~~ oco~3 a) N 0 (D c o~~ o -C -0 2 v) o C: (D a~3 3 0) Ica E co 0 a~ vE 01 NU 0C, co o (D 0' N Q0) 0 o ~ -r- c a U ~O N U c o c C: -5 V roc mQQ Q3 Q c K ° c-0 c Q-0 c c 3 a) o D v ov o~ -9 _r 7 le -C D~ O t C: Z 1 c ? N U Q U E Q U f- - d, U O co U~ r O O ~~ItdA 0 I ~ O i o .2 CCI-) C: a ~ o v ~ I a Mtn U I 4 3 0 ° 3 > ~ 0> ~O-0 o Ua ' 3~ U O A. U O a v Cl c a c Q c z a c> O a Q O CL Q o a- < 0_ CL ILE y a o U , oe -v a v rn O O U c a i O O O N c oai3'o~~ c c U --c a> O O OU O o CL o c co _N a O~ r -C Q) ° I N N y:. O N _0 c vs Q N Q3 ~ a~ o-0.- U a E Q ° rv U o > CL CL ~o ~)0 o-C I U- 1._ -0 N 4-~' ° o C) 4- a 3 ° a~~ ac v~ E~ Ef °-c E 0 ~ aN' 0)a a v mz mm aoa)~o.~. ~0cD- 4- t m a}Nco 5a) N o a~ E _ Nom- -a cam, n ~`C ~I a p O N ~ a :E O p O Q) L U E o cE o NEO-~-a) .00 o,nQ° °o o E c U E ~ v a a U M > Q) o N c O ca J c O N E c 0 a) O O c a a O _ E°~' of E o _ 0-0 O a U5 -c: E co -C -5 E a U U O ~ a) OU N a c a- O o h a~ •o N a_°o} ,O E FAN a) C) IV a W) O a .C aa)°oaU NOa O E a ` Y Q) a" >l U U._~ U-~ aiU a c~U aa,~ U~CL U N a ORIGINAL 0 Cl) ~ O O E ~Q) o - = CL a _ j 0 c CL o a 0 V i c 3> U O E I D a c 0) CL Q O o - d E >H I a~ c 11_ t p N W m~ O E N U U Co O OC p p N t N N N N c C) C) C) C) 0 c 4- In 2!- u CL CL (D 0" E 0 (D D V) _O _O u 0) O p O N p C N O -V p U C N O D C) Q} a T Ot U E Q .CC))--a O C) U ' N tm C7 a) 0 c p p~ C-C -C N c d c-a o C) U, I N w a C p 0 p 7~' N O ^ N` D N N O O~ ^U` _O /C~J a -0 w -0 V) U o poNC c»-C C) c: UE 0 ° p}me c, t V) a m} p ro p N C O tn c a- U c N N 1 Q) a •c o p j CS:E Z.c.auE-L) OpEpOU,HO L-L.- E p - O O Q p ---a E m O N O N _ N ~ N U N N -0 a p N N N'~ N N N C.`} O D c C C C c E .N 'N N L C O p p 0 Q N 'N p U V U O Q r a) c: 2 C) C) C) a) -0 LE o mC) o° aN 5o E o a) c° u I a~ ° off' o a co u C) -01 c Q) -C 70 p Q C} i- O O U p N N -V p (D 01- O O U N pU 0 N N C O •c Q O~ C N p t N O C N co U L- Q U N N C O N 0--5 " p - C O O ° C L- O C C E N N C O U p -C 0- 3 p O- 1 O E' m c N N> p N Z4 NC) ° D ~ H a° o C C) C U O 0 Lo Q) U NFU p.- N.-.-4- ~nRIGINAI 0 N = M O E ` a 0 O) V 2 ° CL © C JM2a I3~ O E CL Q M ~ 0 O V y oC Ogg 4) c v I.- c - p N U O O a) O C U C N N a Q v`~- c } L O O ~-o c aQ c: u a) E 0 Q) N coc U Q x O 0_ (D OL U} d'w O O 0) N c O c U O 0 L O N O O N •x N Q C Q Q O O v- O j Y N c U O U O N O a) _O 3 O I- cQ ` U c O = O O N a C: Ln 'n o V) a c• t oo~~,a.2o c (D I.L~ A20) U~ ° ~_0 Q~ ~o a~ o ` sz p~ o QN Q~ .o U 70 C U E~ w H O - U O} O U ` - c` 4 (D U m O C N ~ N N p Q C3 C I U 0 - E O N p( c N U 0 0 m-0 c-0 c v o 0 ° O~ O O a r~ _ rCL :t= c U Q - C U u N U C c . O O Z) :5 C Y •O •U N -0 ~ P C Q ~Q N N Q a) Q .Q .U I Q U C O °~°ooUc00xoooXONQoou0 ~F'U 0 CL U N U E O Y a U - - - m 'D ORIGINAL _O O C - - I--- r^j q~ , I o I OO 10 C ~ G ~ O CL o c a E 4 0 3 0-0 'Q u `'o o. - g- 0 o CLQ o I C d y ~ ~ ~ i ~ C v a) 0 oc y 0 0) > m> I 0) > ~v ° ~O CO mQ o mQ of ~ a m Q o •0 V) O a) a) a) a) c a) 0 -0 :t a tea) -0 a)LaC C d~ L O - a) O a U o) -a cc _0 c Y N C C O O a) '`)U a)N Cm -p o L C o a D a a 0 o U U a c O> ~w 4)N U aO (t ~ c C C) E 4- a) a _ Ni C) EE }4- a)a -2 g L- 0 0 0- D_ 0 0 0- C) 4- u aoo a~ ~ a ~ IC+- EU a ~~i -0c -°)o~ 9Q) I°0 arc ~o of D -C -C 0 t2 u U.9 5, C) 6i Q C E O O o a L5 O U a) > ~ C) a 0 0 C~ Q) o 0 N o- O~-0 a~ a)CL 0)o > N c Qv o a) c o a> ~a a U c u 0 C3 C) C: oa N ` j - LM a) p N I C a O L) D N a) -C: Ln o v, .N a Q ~ a N U c= Lr- C: o -C -0 N O Q 7C) _0 o c v; ~ n~ O U ` c C E a NN Q) O C E a e8 . v, N O U-0 E N o0 o o C U O° a O a) a o C U c o -5) My .2 :rg W) 07 0 o} W , U N Q D W O o> O N.- 0 0) O !f~ C U U-o U ~U Q c L' U 2 a.9 E ORIGINAL C) N l _ _ O M O N ~ i I O ~ c c Cl c -,a 0 m ca)o V p U o c c ° Q c ° Q c CL LL¢-0 O LZ o LZ E IL C C O ~..TZr > p 0 O 0) m Q O •`0 -co U O OJl-) c a) O V; ~ O O I O a) C 4 N O Z Oc } U o _ O N I p 0 0-0 U 0 a) L: N a) .o Q O } ~ ~ a) 0 OU c CG N a) o Q O 3 U > C Qop ~cvQ °'=p0 a) co U C O~ Q'U ~ o O a} a o C) -0 Q O U c C c- c N vI N} c N p 2 (D -22 cC)°}03 V, O} c .c O N d , U Uim' °i 0~ 4-a._ V C) -I.- o ~a~3c3~Q) 0) ~c3° i~3 L- 0) c a) D c 'O Q U-0 u O O 4- N p a)-0 U O O O} o Q a a) U, N p° a c Q~ 6 c U N U 3 c° O U} ° ° o Q) a) p (D - a) O) o o N y _ a) ` -0t O c E a) c: o2c3~3 °o 0 o u a) '0' N L U f- a 0) c-0 O c O 0 1 U O O a) i ci Q c C: 0 CL C C) Z) -0 ° 3 QpO~N~~o v~I o N o c e~ o} 'U N N p O }oQ~ao°0 0Q EEC C: E N a) N O O 3 o a).~ - U ~o U 73 o a oc 3 N O p a) p Q) " c C) p O N cM a) Q) 1 C W c m N LL O a) O N 6) -0 LL TD LL N O Y ORIGINAL 0 o r~ C m o c o m U o a CL p - - - - t c c 0 4-~> oN~ o o a v p U o O U° c o> I p, c CL Zn > Q v a) d C (1) a l a) Q v. V) < O ~ CL cn Q -0 o U- CL Q ~ ----I --------a o o o V~V i o u Ozv a>, a~ CL 0c ~oo-00c a I c C: O apppoo o ~E o E= _ c C:DL t2 -0 "m:r->~~c Nir- >pc a E o E C) a) ma) U-C c ~-r-pEC) Q)U 14 E>`H O U} - ai p p a) m O y- p 0 aa)) - 4 - c H O = C o'>- C) aa)) a- 0 :D ~ X0)(1) -r 0u -0 C) 03~ ° cu0~ Qc _ O p y- U i c) p N-0 C Q) N U •O O- E` C a) 0 ~ O) C O.`33o0~N p-0ca) o _ po o a o -p O U a) C p'- p) O N L O E -c E c: E 0) 0 V) O O co 5 -5 Q c O p OU c-p U E a) o p c~ V)_° O C O O O° O u i O-0O E a) C) cy C)) 15 _ a) O 3 p O X U D p " v Q p o .N o a -p !n C) -0 E 'O O U C >1 a) p a) a) C U a) _ N <n E O) a) O a) ° _O C) } UO p -0 N , a) ~ U -C C: 4- 0) u EL 0)E~~ Qp ~Epcp~"75 to pp)°~ ~Q o L- ° p . -Q H C C C) O N c p p a) a) _p a O U Q } O c W D O E O H O c 3 Q D c -p C O C) o o a) E= r- o H min H p e~ U ' in U C O i 41 1~- 0, a) O E O) a) o O y: O U o 0 m a) o c 3~ °C Q ma v o~.a a p o .2 75 v) c4 :S) Cxu) E U - - - j m CD ORIGINAI 0 CY) V 0 a CL z O ~ a c o uv a) o U` 0 a)U~ > c > a -0 CO iZCLV)< o ILi~va)iQ-0 0 3 ~a 20 11 c v~ I vs ~ m C 0 O of -CIZ N ° 0 3 a) o N-4- a) -0 5 1 (1) 12 U C) a) C))~ 3 a)~ aaUi~^ a0 ° ° C. U O O O o C: C) O p U} a) a a) N O O m o N O C O E - p 0 0 N O y C C O ° p CA ooU o ~a) ° NC o a a -0 -0 o .N Q U O 0 0 0 O C O 0 O 3 a c a N 0) h opC)0 E.0) cam" ° ~Q)*-o ?'`a a) Q a) O T, 0 N C N F- O L U O 0-0 E 0 'Q E o E co 0 O N o C U 0) (7 c 0 0 E_0 c a) ° 0) - o Cl a) C_ a a)' n o C oo c=-0 a O -p c N° H O C 0 CL c C) ° c a) U E 0 O-0 co o C) 0 a) -0 C: q E a) E ° ~ C) D CZ o ° o 0- f C ~QI ) oo~°a)00 ~ a a) o~~'~ a)V ; 00 xu D N (1) O 0- C 0-0 a) E >--o a) N! o a 5 0~ 5C p~ NL C ~oC<.,O CI ca >°~Cmmo N -0000 o'o~ o~a-°_ C C) CL -0 ~I E O C U .E N Q C) N U O Q) C O Q O a) Q) Lo C) c° a o~ o c~ ~ 5 C o °a E° O~ E a °I U c o C: 00Oa) 0 C._E~ ° °o° o_E a°>)~2a ~o ~oa;~a0 LE 0OQ~Na~ aa~a)0ao o~E~nZ)0)C,V c0o¢a)o~ v o.E a~ a0~ c~ o Ln Ln o~ a. t9 3 E UU C a m ~ CST v ORIGINAL 0 CY) N C I m O O ~ `O E I O O V I 2 CL ~ I O C C. E o 3v ~ I u ;C E I o I I - - S 9. s c O a _09 I v i 'o ~acooa-0 C: )-0 0) 6-0 jai c 0 O u -5 ° N 2 O O N O O O t O N !5 ° C C N N U N N D (A D V~ 4- O ° O U N 0U U N O= N O <n O U 0 ° -C 0 p N° N° p> N° a) C: -0 L- ( C ° N° O C Of m° ° C C a) 4- °C OU ° O C N U O O O U 3- " U _C _N !5 o E C > ~c c _ C 4- C O 'a Q a N ° O N ° O C3 0 m U C O d>2 C C: = -C OL U° Q~E N I~ v cn N°°a)c°Ua°i Q°o°u Co E N N N B C O -C N~-C N°° N N> 0 0 o Q o 0- a (D u 70 N O U° OU O ° O N a) c: N O C O E' O a ci Q O N 0 O C° O C N V) a C 01 U C-0 N >-C - U O C N O U E 7 U N O N V) ; ° ° .O O ° Lc O U DY O C R cc u N C C: V) 70 N NCL D U C'E C_O O•«= a) o Y ° a) O ~ 0 Q~ H U E N N '0 ° ~ U c U o l U C o m O p° o U-0 ° N _D . o O c o Q D c O) F o U CL CL u 0 Flo - - - - m ORIGINAL. O C%4 CO O o E a 0 C u - o a- O c > - o c 0. > z a > Q I ' a o atV)< o LE V) <D- c >1 o U o c c u zu • E o. a rn c h a~ E ce p c p D v o rn 0 a) -0 a) 70 m'3 ~4- c a}'- o o~ p O vi ~n O C C C O U 0- N O 0-0 U -0 C -0 of N N - N a) 0 (D U O a) V) D N V) H O a N N a) p U Q O 'O N O O O -0 0 4- a) -0 O N C 3 (D • 0 t p a a 0 3 c a) > -0 m -0~~}E Q oa`0a)oC) -o - C) -0 - a 4- M ~ O-C -C a) t N U t U U V, .0 O •5 c -0 > 0 N c N° O a U ~ O'Q O N n U CO U O N 'U V N U p O c C Q` O C O U Q o U O 0 Q O C D U D cL` Q O a c c C -0 U~ 0 0 O C E N N a) > 0 in O 3. ° a r. v; E 0 D U c c E ..c O, c 0 o aci 0 0 c 0 0-0 2~ c3 Q) E L- 0 U oo LP o r- a) Z) c N 3 O c U a)~ o 00 'O-0 o o 0- a~ o U U a) L~ C) C7 a~ Oho c } - - m c~ vORIGINAc 0 CV) ° N N O a~ u ° a N I O O a u W •v i c 0 N N Z Q_ V c c u 3 CL E o, o rn ~ ~ CL c c 't 19 00o. c)) (1) cid > N O vrn EL Q o 0 7C) ooo - a> oc7C) oo=-0 a) -C: c 03 ~3 o c -C c c ° ~ " ~ E V _ ' ~.u F o° a o} 4) 0 a V)-0 C) c a~U aw~ W_- o a ago -C C C) c EAU u o~ a) Q) a 3U-a o-aUQ) -0 v> UUco~D06 ~ °~r-ap~a .N p co U° N a N C) p a) ~ N a) Q H~~ 2: 0 L- Nc6 a)0 C)c]x a°ip ~ml ft- ~ o -0 0 3~~= -he u a~ o mo'n a) c - U-0 L6Z OaQ aL- CCL N.Ua3 44 ooa° a Qu~75 N~ ~V)N°I 5 b3 6 aQiV)aaci oa u°o c&EQ) LE (D 0 a) v0) c p c} c o m U g oc O o M: 0. _ as ,.o3a a 00 -'T - 0 a) .0 W 4- C a p U.S a U a) a) p° O a) C O U _O C) N U a U p C0 W C N N.~, _ a)._ U ad C) :r- O a aN x> oV U° a E~ ° U > N a N N> Zf C cc a- O ° U-r v vs o~N,a~va~ ao boo=ULn ao a a a)} a , CO N~ o} C aH ~u c UO E _0 ~ ~ O C) Q) W 4--. a _ ad -0 0 D ~E pU o}? o c D O c U c ` cac W ~ a OQ-a >o o~ Mm.a~ 3 ml o Q' a) _Z o ~ c o a U a C o~~ aN i c; U o m o`_ E a) > R O m O 00 a O Zj ° ail > N o p ~ a Sri 0 xa a o a U >1 Q) C) r14 U O x a ~m o.E U~UDe m E o a QCL m F 'ORINNAI 0 o - ~ Cl) er c i (3) O (tO ~ N O I ` ~ V' C, O as ~ a w 0 c o auk > v • r- :5 3: 2 a) vi o a) o a) ° o c l V) c 4- o U0u aUoc N='0 ''~~Qool 07 g- I o c E p O ~ g N O a) O aj N O 4- a) c U O Q o QO)o m D t U a D O x E-o a U N O a) c O E O N O cO O Q 0) a ~ m N-0 O O p o Q~3 N}~.o ~p)•c a c E p- Q a) C: /0 p O U 4- p) p O O~ p QQ " O Q v Q a) Q Q O Ln i 01 O i t Q Q Q) C: u E O V, U O U 0 -C _O O O O U a 4- a) Q L V) u U Q U ` a) c: O 2-c O Q)-0 a O O >,Zi Q ~ Q- O O O v U 6 p) O O a' D N (n a) O O O` a Q C O N O p - p a) } N o C p t2 - O C: 0 a==o o a 0) o a) a)m a0 Q'S E H -h- c O <n O a) O 6I E N a o) o '5 b jo U Z U 'c p t- N 0)0-0 Q O U c m O U O) N D O Qp L- x j O O> C U ° a) 0 0) i~ O U 3 QE o o U aU Q~ C) Q Q ~CL 'ORIGINA! 0 M N _ C a) O o m U o n. o U o 0 3 E °o y vs o c o CL u ~e 0 c o I .a i c - 0 :t= C ° `4 C C: O N Q a) 6 0) -5 z) 0 L) x U C °m 70 cc !5 0> _N~ - >-0 °-0 a) Q- LF- Q a) a) O p c 7 0 Q p W Q p p0 n 0) Q o ~E U~ x E o x a) o Q~ c o o t/ 0•p c D -0 ° ° U a) E E ° O C U O O a) O° N c V U U a) E c O U O - } ° U 076 a) c a) Q U- Q ° Q U Q C 0- ' a) 0 p> -V a) p O ° Q Q Q N ° ° a) `n a) ° Q U- C: N c se a) a) p ' N :E u v) .o O E ° y FLU Ea ° c ~C 4 O~ ` u U > ° U 3 w p p= a) -C v 0. N aE (1) a~ `mo'o 3L~•o c tea` ca) E :D E00 Q U06 a) U O D p a) co 0 U 0.5 D I C: t2 C) c° ° a'5°-C '0 c O > a u c~ c N p) 0° - Q 'n E c c a) ° O pi x 0.9 Q p 3 O> t -c- c O 'c E~ O L' 0 U° Q Q 0 E = ° O C) Z) -0 N N~ Q- c 0 C: c= a) OD O O U O = cc co -0 Oa)9p}a>~oa)oa~ooZc~o'o a -f -0 4k r14 Ll- vORiGwa 0 0 o 0 m a) V m CL o a I o o c o ~ o vs ~ c c CL p c > O. ~ O y ~ o G c a Q o a o> U O >.U C 00 Qc 0)Z U O U Q O Q in-0 0 t N C U U ° 3 U° o~ -0 _a c > 0 j o ac) c sN)- ° t- o o 7C) 7C) D 0) a) v) E °vs o c 4- > ~ ° ° ao~ N 3 75 a4) EQ a~ `S c z O-0 c U .3 N o c D X N p U N Q c •Q) N L. O } U 0 C •p N a c a) > 0 0 O -0 Q G a .U 0 0 -,2 a) U y-- -C U V 0) N N y- •H } N ii a) y0 sa)>,O Q O O a) O °'O 0U~ 0 c-0 O Q 3~ o H °_°o:oo o} ~0 c a m~~ omm ~ a) 0 a) m Q) 0 O 0 O .c E (D O H O aa) tea-. 04- 0)C U pL N.N c: E Q) p C C '0 ° O C a) Q Q c U CL E 0 U C Q O N 0 Op 0 a) N a) O a) O= U-C 0 n`_ Q (D V) N Q> E -0W.C Q~-0 -0 0)~~ 0m N~Q 0 C O O O _C _p U Q) O 0 N p O OU .y Q 0 E O y ) M.0 O E N j~oomaa_~o o~ ° o°do` Uoo a c c} ~ma O c Qo ~N QE~;~i is m O a) in N a) D° C 0. 0 Sri O XQ Q O 0 Q) C U o U~.~-a o 0-0 x'0'3 U o-0 U a) CL I-~ a) o U_0U wH v ~ ~ORIGINAc O - N M _v I 40- 10 Q) o - - - o t c , a _m 0 V p 3 ua I E ~o v y rn CL c N o a v . > N m o c G ~ I } w C) -C .5 C) LL .5 a) 4- D c ; cC N c O Q p O O H 0 U O N L N° N vi N N N C U p C N p 8-2-0 ° N H O O1 p _m v E c) c: 4- C) O p c E m 0-0 O - n U U ° C c m ° N O O E CL o a~~ o N} a a° 0)0) o C: o p) c} E cca)U- 0) UV, cpp UOp M O O Q p Q O L O p N E •a O) Q O O N N QLL' 0 0 0 O c 0 N O U N 0 O U p U° N O `i' N p U° U U N C -C Q) c Q~ N`> Q U N N Q 0-c O-~vi -101-) -Q O c O Q0 N `4- N _E p,e3° a-03~ C: a°O ° ova u~ U- tt= u v; U N m -0N O p c :D N p O p o p 0 " -0 70 Z) E -p O O) C p O O 0- > O > O O N° C: 7C) c p 4- O N D (1) N° N c: c ~O - ~O aN c .mac 5 O N O1 c Ol y O p D c~ D c Ln-0 p N_ c ° t c ' N U Z o °c -0 a- (n m N° U co m D -0 C: p 0 C)) 0 7C) 7C3 c U N~ C O C O Q U- ~ _ c > U xt v. U c O L O1 L O p O Q_ N~ O.- p O U O U- p U3pa~E`) UpUQc DUQ v o nRIGInlA! O N T a 4- v c ) 0 o ~ N a ° ~ a a. 0 a c ~ ~ o u m aci c ~E ° v j c rn A 0 aa' CL -0 11 m N _ C c a .C v O a vvs aQ O N O O' > C C O vi L E 0 2.0 0 r- V) CL O cL a O c D 0 Q) O a)' N.~ O C a) a) E 2 L N 07 -0 O > c (7 N N U N N } O N a C N U 0) D U- 0- V O} ° ° 0 0 v, E O)°` c0a EE0E ~Qo-p~2)~H~ O OpamopU 3 0q)N~a~oa)c is a) Q D= a) t2 a 0 ~c ~ aoN 0 a) 3 ~ a) :D I O t2 C c~ c O a) - a 0 p -t -C O a > 0 Cl. N O N C , at z O 4- a a 30 0~ Eao° a) V) UE (D C3 a) E (D D v D- Q) 4- U- O O _a O E N O c O) a) -0 N Z a) O V O L- N p ai cD 3 N O U C) V) E 0-0 0 C: 0. 0 V) U' O N CO vUi m a) ° O O N U> -0 0 3 (1) N C Q (3) 75 c: u a c N O a) N O ° t 'p N 'U U~ a) a O a O D 0 -jZ U- -0 c a o ccEc Q N arm -0 0 O p 0 o'c D O N p° a 0 -0 - ci o E 4- c Q N U- c 0 7L } as a~oU a a~i > o a)' a CL -0 o c O 0 E U 0 2 00•L) m a) U au a) oU a)O o 0) N N a- _ a) O C o a t a a u- E o aao a o p c p'o a) om}~ o Uo ~ oqU p aQ O U Q U V) V) CL d, 0- °c P c U K H U - - O > co ~nRIGINAII 0 0 `N m o c 02 00 L a O O - O Q ~ C O C E. - O' E v ~ rn 0 °c. o 4) m > ~ .v 4) c O .C v v 0 o C '0 N O-c C H N o C3 a) O "O 0 D a) N O O a) O O in C: -0 (D C)7 Z) 0 c N Q ° O a) N 0 a O N O p N 0 3 v o a c c°c°E°-o 0.- o= OL C: 'n a) O)o a) u N _ -C E Qti o} O} U C Z O-~ 3 O O O in a) a) 70 -0 C O O O N O O C N C.-'- L U-0-0 a)?-a) } O a- 0 -C 0- 4) U 7n` ' ` L N /FYI N U F_ C y_ 0 C_ o C: Ln -C ° O RV) E -0 u C) c: D} O C U 0 to H 0 N N a) i C: 6- 07 Q) } te a Q E O O 0- O C •0 Q U 0) C3 U O -0 C) 0 H C Q 0 U- -.c E ° QQO o 0~~~ 0) Q o} v;-0 0 N-0 ~ O 0 c O}~.C-sc C UO O C V1~- N p 0-0 0 0 C N a= O U N O O~ -0 0- c 0 0 0 0 O U <n a) O E N o 0 O O O-0} O O ~ 0 a) . J ~ CL CO O CO O N~o~-0 a- c~ L- -0 0~ U O. ° O ZEN p~ ~ (D c O U -p 0D E Q) a) a) C 0~ O a) -O a 0 a) -0 ~ 'C C c V) O 6 0) U O o (,5 3 - - _ 0 0 O a) 0) >u 0 Y a) C - Q > 0) Q a) CO c - 75 5: U o ~-0 0 Q0 ° U E- o a) m o Z) Q~ o 0 o 0-0.0 A` FCC Q Y F- r ~QP.IGIN~~ o ~ ~ C O O V v o Cl- a c C o ~ E - - t e 0 3t 0 E 4.0 rn ° - rn c c ~ O C V 4 _0, °1$ 0 g c o o 0) •c N Q N N c O N N N N ° a~~ co} -C -C OcD ooc>oo"'•z3 C U N O U O O O~ N o 4- ° ° > ~ c N C: Oc O N o 0 O N O N O O <n O 'p O U u~ E>. vUc U~ ~QEQcc ocCa) No Cpl c a) C: -~oo~ QOo Ear- o -0 -0 a) U ` o C3 a) C) O a) j N C C N N b) N N V, C: = C) -0 vi C) a) 0-0 E ~E -000 C: C) 0Co~C0 _0 c-C o~m~EQ o m U.5) oo2o~ -~c~N6oo~E-5c y A o N Q Q H N C N 0 o O c Q 0 p O p c O O C O N N N O m 0-0 N O O -O 'b ~C N N 3 N - O Q C O N O U D c 0-0 N _0 O 0 O Cl u -0 4n C: V) V) o y- N C U Q o 0 04-0 C Co >C U Ln a N U (7 ^ Ll 0) a) Ln V, C: 0-0 Ln D N C o 3 O) 0 0 Q O y p N 0 0 N C E L 4 H 07> c o" o 3' 3 o a~'= o 3 ~ c a) N C 3 °Q O N 0° O Cl C-0 ~ ° XZ- V OU~=}~ c~ O 0) U 0) a-0 4- p N E OLo O c N c o m ~ Lc'~ c'NNoo~ c3~>(oa>i Q u c m cn L N O O C N ~ O) _ o N a O U 1~6N > U c N-0 0-0 a t to I-- a O O N U - - o c ~nRIGtNAc O ~ cv) o ( J a i m o c v 0 O M O C C i~ 4- - 0 .mac ~ a u FL a. C U o ~ I c 3"t 3 C d E I v > 0 ~ d o 90E 0 C c > m C v ' y C O c c c a v rn ~ Q o CL r- c ~ a O N O (1) O U o N C Q-a _0 a) 0 U.J a) 3 CL 4) U 0 c u'E C O c Z)~ (1) U Ln Q) o °2~~ ~~aia~ aiNaa°o~~ N > -o m° 3 3 H~4= >-C a o a CD 7C) C: N a) o p a) c- a N N U N } U O a QU~°C))•>- Q) V)~ O ~ ate`°c"'4-•3a)-a 6- 4- o EV,ppa >_a)U0- >i o ~._ac oo~ V) aoo' a -CE O j ~ -EE o o~ a~ o 0-0 U a > p O Q C N -0 c N V' N D N a .C E N O a O, -o S -0 N a a a) O a O O p N v, a a i aN c-0 m0 a~ E? a a~ N H 0 3 ° =L C: (D E o 3¢ a) W x o° o Qa a a U 0 " z ~ c0ED.0 a) 0) a a~a0ot2 c 0 0 U a -0 om ao o o ~ 0 QQ- a l ci o O Q)- Q 0 UEc:QO p O U m N~ o~ O c a N a~ U C) a) > a P N o c a- c~ a _ 0- De a _ > a7C) o m N Z- U -,aoa• z~ ~a a o U o0 ii Chi ~ORIGINAI- O E - - - - M O _ o - _ m c CL F 0 c 3 u CL ~ E rn rn c ~ C > ai_tL 0 Cp CC )O CO c v~ Q o mQ o mQ o mQ o ml O ° C> C U ° C C D c N O° O 3 p p°° V; 75 a) -0 o C3 = a) °°-0 Q N N Q N U 0 m~ C C -C N vi (n ° 0 -0 O N p O p 0 N N O O c U° N N - N 0) U O OU -0 u 3 > U-0 U C O O - p U ° O O C N E N ) U Q 0 (D 0 0) u E p Q D p) N m O I O C E _ ) C C° C p)- i N (n U C3 0) D -C 4- U QoUO°p~ao 3° N o -~v3 ° o aoi >O a°Z g~ ° o~ c-a o o c ° > o'er m > C) N C a) N 00 C° O p N 0 N N C O 000 70 p°oo NoUO ooa ~pLnU O ou ' O O o O - U U N U N) ? N N C N Q C 0 V) C U -U, U ° c a N C ~-Q N ° Z) U Q~ ~ o ° ° N ate -C N O - p O u) V) a0 U7 C O)U p 4- ~co ° p U C 2 C C° Q 0) 0 p) N O C x N N U C p Q o N> C> 'vi C> 0) U E O Ln C C -0 a[ N C-) E a .u Q 0 U d.N m C o 0 a) N~z -C ° O 0) L- -0 2 ° 0 C C O O U m (D Lu 0 Q C ~ > N ° - oE °3O°E oe oo~po c4ai~mEF (D u E -c- -0 E -.c Q Q Y N U N U Y 'v~ Y N N Y O Q-. oRjrjjNAI o E O N c m ^r I cot N E M E C a o O U O CL Q G L t j 0 U c c 3 Q, 0 a. m Q 0 u CL © a) a) Q) O ~O cc 0 ~O ~O °C > ag ~a a a ~0- o o t' a 73 a c 5 0- c '5 a c '5 a c .5 Q c ¢ o co ¢ o m Q O co ¢ o m Q O 0 c _ 0 0 O V, a`) C N N N O -0 :t p c O E D a) 0 N 3 N N p o pQ) } c t c 0) E O U p x c E 0 a~ o° N~ 3 3 _0 0 O Q) c O c O O O -p d O N c c `v o U p o aci o•~~ a) 00 aiE0 o - y a U}_ a C" N E N N p p Ln E c) a) C: 0 -0 Q) L N O N O E tn p p -Q N E p <n O .0 N} O_r h O E U >O 0 4- -0 > N p vi O } C N a N N M E U O N N O Q) 4-- 4- 0- E C) N O O > ~ N O per- 0- c C o Eo_ 0 Q) Q) L a 0 Q) a) In -0 E O O -0 Q) c N C) Ln 0 N C O N p O N N 0).-- V) a U U O N U X p N0 _0 ` U p, N E ?c 00 0) o Et x p~E°o° u o oSao _ 0 3 o 0 L- U O U - do U U- >U U NJ c- -~Y o 'er p-0 E o LU wi a) E C) -o X 0 1" x o X N N -0 D a O 0 a~~ ~pa) N Y~o3a~3~ ~p~NU ~c°3 0`` `~oplGiNAt O E N o - i 1 _ C C ~M 02 c E a o U - - - - - - c ~ o u c' E - 0 U ul .F. 3 a > rn 0 CL vs c a~ -0 a -0 -0 a~i m> 0) > 0) > m> >H co co co co c0 c0 a c 5 0 c Q c c c a c c co ca< o co¢ o m¢ o m¢ o mQ_o oo¢ 0~ C: C: In -C 0 fC c 0 N C) a U V) O O Ln -C (n 4- C > C } C 0-2 Q > - 0 v) Ln C L= -C p 0 O X c X O Q Q L O a t ~ -r- Q Q 0-0 a~. a aN a QN o N ° E } oho oC3 a°~o 4- 2 -0 N N N ` Q 0 U U 0} -0 1 N > • L E U 44 CL CL 0 C) - c: 4- cl- a- 0 N O O c N O a) D }-0 O p u u 4-°o UO° 0 0 0 g o~ 0C: oho o c } c° coN• c H N o°3c ~Q)i o> o> °oa~ °(D U a ~ ?30~ ou O ~c 4-~ 4- 0 o -NZ (n kn 4- C: C) c c C: C :p 0 0~ o oo'n > U °~o o 0N U " C) C3 u a) C: N 0 0 0 ° 0 0 7C) CD c 0 Z) C: C: CO) C: 0 E 0 0 N a N i C N tc:D,) O O ° ° o~2 ° a~a ~ °~AK~ 07 rA OU i O Y 3 O O m `nq►(;INAL o CY) N ° M C3 a ~ c _c V cm c ° v do v `o> 0 rn ~ ' 0 CL c v aai ° T 0) > g. Co °'o mo ~o ~Q p Q c 5 c 5 a c 5 Q c o m¢ o ca< o mQ o m¢ O I-- C 'o ~p co cc cC in o o a - o a a aO ao a° D-0 a• (0 D 07 a > Q O Q . -iz a) Q) 0 U 07 0 T apt 3~ 0O o a- 0 -0 Q N ° - CL va) 5 - `-0 (A x ~ Z p p} (1)= ~ ~O vi O N D O as a) a) a~ 3 > c 6- a) _ ) _ n o ° ova ohm a " o co cc Ln c~N E~ c N a oQ 3N as a~ 3 ~ o 3 0 o a, `U 2 aU imp Q o O 0 -5 v) E c U p a 0 0 0 E u3N Boa' }(D °'°E Q) aroo mop ma~~ O°' oo Eat C -0 C r- Q) Q D ~70' o.- o U co aX o o c a3 0 m 0 00 ao 'cU wQ rl4 o Lei C) (1) Paz X 5 0 Cu 0 C) Y v)v, Q Y ZA O Y L Y Z ~ n. U co r 'v o ORIGINAL cn o ct E a ~ p a C t1 a u c CL E 81 . o 4c c 3 0 E rn - p d u _0 -0 -0 70 CL c 0)o 0) o CD O 0)> C: 0 0 5a c .5a c 5a c •5a C v m¢ O m¢ O m¢ O m¢ O v vs c 0 0 0 p O Q) -C a) Q) a) C C CO O V O - U ~0 > c Rocco BEN m ~a) >„~N a. a) C L N I p O O N C Z) O U N aC -C ) 4c u } a- O --j a) - a) U O p O O d Q) z °ENC v a~ao0) E ua Cao~~ C rn C O •O D -C N O t✓ U O N a N Q] U L N N O 0 m0-a;.? 03 oacay- 0 N -C ~ o a C ~ a a o a C O C O N } a) I U a c 0 a) E O O O Q. N 6 E N 'a O C 0-0D a N U -C in , N 3 N N a~ 5 U N U C u c> a o M O N U _a a) 6> O - Z) N O O E N 4- tn U, 0 2) " O U ~ - -ate O O a) O ? -0 a) OU a a U Z _ ' 0 ~ Q) O C 0 U a) ~ U V) 2 j O N N C O O O O N 0 O C3 U O E a) o U a) a-0 C: _ p Q ` a) c 0-0 ` T L -0 a) a) C vn r O N U O 70 O 0 V) U C ' X a) E N a) C U O C3 !E -0 N O In 0 .C -C 'O N u a) O N N a a) n a) U U O > 0) Oa O O C) N N a) Q N O o 000 4- a) C A) N a-0 O C N O N C- C U c p m °Y' o o a) C p Z) Q) E Q> a) 2 E c m a c~ c a .o m H d CL u a j a) U O'N --o .O N Q Q t2 O a) 0=' O cV 0 eh 2 a_) >N O+ Y Q -0 : D CL- Z J > U C J En C J N a) > o 'n J a a- -0 U - m UI ORIGINA! 0 o M C.- E C V - [O ~ G C D f a .G U O ~ vT Q E cl- Q O O as o a 0. j -E c 4) • oo a) o a N a) °~aa oa°OEo N E 3 L_ ° ° E E a) VEEo},~ L L- C N a p o O a o c C O Q) a) 3 N o N 3 a`) V) C) Ln 0 Lr-- E CA LA C: -r a) V) -C Ln .Q) O 3-0 N N Q a D N ° o 4- :E 2 LO .-'0 E C: 0 4- U D O a) O u U N N a) n O a 0 U Q a) U N a U a N a) c ° •Q a -a a CA U 6- a Q 0} N O a .O 0 Q O Q a- -C U L- a O C D 70 Q a) p ~ U U a) N a) in W~_)`~o v 0 Nom ~a~XCa' ycvo3a) U> a) O a) .N a) O O Q) O C V) 0) C: 0 a c: m O O N N 3 O O U 'N ~ V L- -E L->>Em Q) 0 L- -0 a) a a)-0 >a)~ oo n-0 c.~ y Oa)NU} c Q) V) -0 C 4- m m3aa-aC: V, aC° y ooo~+- ' a- a 3 o a a)~ c o 3 C o~ ~ZU W N a)~ C: sn N O L } > O a Z a).0 U C C O U c p a~ Ix U.>- C U co caU ° Ca o.o 0) ~U C Z) U D- c H o Qo c a a) CO 'N c c: C C ~ C a 0? a) Q) *a o Q) C c ~ U c o N -0 a -0 C Q) 0 _0 } - n C y a) > a) OL -C Q- C: U 0 0 m ORIGINAL ° _ - - - - E M m o C~ E m U a ~ 0 C o p o c CL v~ ^I O' w U a 3 -0 o -0 u & 3> 3> o o m a. :5 a ~a v > ~Q o EL Q C E o - o rn c c a o IV -6 A O. o > 0 c c o oo - C:-5 _r_ 0 c: 0.- 3 aD U o ° ai N o C c 3 ca)~~~~ oE~0.O N< > O 4- N -C O 0 - ( } a) C / O O Qaw-CC L O S N O LU O U _ - w C O O 0--b U, O p O O c B 0~ a) C E E~~ O N N C' O _0 -0 U > O ~ .C O O oa -I--C o co~oca~~~ U N N }-C a E a) O 4- O c m (A C3 W a) 0 N in a) Q=()C: mo(DaNco0o~ O)a ° Ln V) 0o CL Q) -o0O,oU co (A C C Q p U~ ft- O H c 0-0 O N p 7C) 4-- a) C) D -0 C)7 00 0 0 cA CL Q) -r- o u AIL coo.- UC: o 01% a) 3 a) Q > c O vi - cl -C D Cl C14 (n vv" E U O oO-o E c_ o c c O c aD Q) oE3a~co ocEoo~°°•o.= < ~co 0 0-0 o 0 c U-0 07 9-0 E~ CEn L o a a'~ CL q) _a E " -a- 0-0 c3co ~ v'> m C)7 '-O N O c .U a W N N .n O O U m vi N O O Q U c a N $P, a Q a~ O N a.S] U 6w O oa U o LCL U - - - v ORIGINAI