PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING of OCTOBER 6, 2016 Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue Regular Meeting 5:30 P.M

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 2016 Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue Regular Meeting 5:30 P.M.

www.bakersfieldcity.us

1. ROLL CALL BARBARA LOMAS, CHAIR RICHARD SCHWARTZ, VICE-CHAIR OSCAR L. RUDNICK DAVID STRONG JEFFREY TKAC PATRICK WADE BRYAN WILLIAMS

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR NON-PUBLIC HEARING a. Approval of minutes for September 1, 2016. Staff recommends approval. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS Ward 4 a. Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12062 (Phased): Porter & Associates, representing Bolthouse Properties LLC, is requesting an extension of time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map consisting of 16 parcels on approximately 465.93 acres into zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, CO, OS and DI, located south of Stockdale Highway between Nord Avenue and ½ mile east of Heath Road. A Notice of Exemption from CEQA will also be considered. Staff reccommends approval. Ward 6 b. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7262 (Phased): McIntosh & Associates, representing Panama Lane Properties, LLC (property owner), is proposing to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 single family residential lots in an R-1(One-Family Dwelling) zone located at the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive in southwest Bakersfield. A proposed Negative Declaration will also be considered. Staff recommends approval. Ward 4 c. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201: Rosedale Land and Development Inc., representing Gregory and Catherine Hillier (property owners), is proposing to subdivide 11.30 acres into 6 commercial parcels and one sump parcel in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road in Northwest Bakersfield. Use of a previously adopted Negative Declaration will also be considered. Staff recommends approval. Ward 1 d. Zone Change 16-0197: East Panama LLC, (property owner), is proposing a Zone Change on a 14.61 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and Sparks Street in Southeast Bakersfield, from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) zone, or a more restrictive district. A proposed Negative Declaration will also be considered. Staff recommends approval. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT

Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Planning Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Meeting of September 1, 2016 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue

ACTION TAKEN 1. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Lomas, Vice-Chair Schwartz, Rudnick, Strong, Tkac, Williams

Absent: Commissioner Wade

Staff Present: Jacquelyn Kitchen, Planning Director; Andrew Heglund, Deputy City Attorney; Daniel Padilla, PWD Civil Engineer III; Brad Vedula, Building Engineer III

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS

None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR NON-PUBLIC HEARING

a. Approval of minutes for the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 2016.

Motion by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commission Tkac APPROVED to approve Consent Calendar Non-Public Hearing Items 4.a. WADE ABSENT

CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS

a. Zone Change No. 16-0066: Smith Efada, (property owner), is RES NO 37-16 proposing a Zone Change on approximately one acre located along the south side of Norris Road, generally east of Calloway Drive from R-S-5A (Residential-Sububan-5 acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling), or a more restrictive district. A finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061 (b)(3) will also be considered.

5. b. Zone Change No. 16-0232: Porter and Associates, Inc., RES NO 38-16 representing ThuHoa Thi Nguyen and Mau Thanh Vu, (property owners), is proposing a Zone Change on approximately 1.15 acres located along the south side of Rosedale Highway, generally west of Patton Way from A (Agriculture) to M-2 1

ACTION TAKEN (General Manufacturing). A finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) will also be considered. c. General Plan Amendment No. 16-0218: Brad DeBranch, RES NO 39-16 representing Bolthouse Properties, LLC. (property owner) is proposing a General Plan –Circulation Element Amendment on approximately 1,215 linear feet of future roadway located Heath Road, south of Stockdale Highway. The request includes an amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan- Circulation element Map to change the segment of Heath Road, south of Stockdale Highway, from a designated Arterial roadway to a Collector roadway. Use of a previously certified EIR will also be considered. d. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 16-0231: James REMOVED FROM Delmarter, representing Kern Delta Water Storage District CONSENT (property owners), is proposing a General Plan Amendment CALENDAR and Zone Change on approximately 1.4 acres located along PUBLIC HEARING south side of McKee Road, generally east of Stine Road. The FOR SEPARATE request includes: (1) an amendment of the Land Use Element CONSIDERATION of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential), or a more restrictive designation; and , (2) a change in zone classification from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) and R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling /Planned Unit Development), or a more restrictive district. A finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) will also be considered. e. General Plan Amendment No. 16-0309: The City of Bakersfield RES NO 42-16 Public Works Department proposes to (1) amend Exhibit A of Resolution 263-04 to clarify the existing boundaries for the West Beltway and Westside Parkway Interchange located along Stockdale Highway generally between Renfro Road and Heath Road; and, (2) add a Class 1 Bike Path within the right- of-way of the West Beltway from Stockdale Highway south.

The public hearing was opened and closed with no comment. APPROVED Motion by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner WADE ABSENT Williams to approve Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items 5.a, b, c, and e. Item 5.d. was removed for separate consideration.

5. PUBLIC HEARING

The following item was removed from Consent Calendar Public Hearing for separate public hearing consideration.

d. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 16-0231: James RES NO 40-16 Delmarter, representing Kern Delta Water Storage District RES NO 41-16

(property owners), is proposing a General Plan Amendment

and Zone Change on approximately 1.4 acres located along south side of McKee Road, generally east of Stine Road. The request includes: (1) an amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential), or a more restrictive designation; and , (2) a change in zone classification from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) and R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling /Planned Unit Development), or a more restrictive district. A finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) will also

be considered.

The public hearing was opened. Staff report given. Two people APPROVED spoke in favor. One person spoke in opposition. Both sides given TKAC ABSTAIN a 5 minute rebuttal period. Public hearing closed. Commissioners WADE ABSENT deliberated.

Motion by Commission Williams, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to approve Public Hearing Item 5.d. Commissioner Tkac abstained.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

a. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 16-0204: RES NO 43-16 Trammell Crow Company, representing Coffee-Brimhall, LLC RES NO 44-16 (property owner) is proposing a: (1) General Plan Amendment RES NO 45-16 and, (2) Zone Change on an approximately 60 acre portion of a 258-acre project site located on the east and west sides of Coffee Road, generally north of Brimhall Road and south of Rosedale Highway (SR 58). The purpose of the request is to facilitate development of the “Bakersfield Commons” Project, which is a master planned Mixed Use Project consisting of commercial, medical, residential, recreational, and light industrial uses. Specifically, the request includes: an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to change land use designations from LR (Low Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 12.64 acres, from LR to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 0.81 acres, from LR to OS-P (Open

Space-Parks) on 2.67 acres, from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) to OS-P on 6.5 acres, from HMR to OS-P on 0.75 acres, and from GC (General Commercial) to LI (Light Industrial) on 20.75 acres, or more restrictive designations; and, (2) a change in zone classifications from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) on 12.64 acres, from R-1 to OS (Open Space) on 2.67 acres, from R-1 to R-4/PUD (High Density Residential/ Planned Unit Development) on 0.81 acres, from R-3/PUD to R- 4/PUD (High Density Residential/ Planned Unit Development) on 15.91 acres, from C-C/PCD (Commercial Center/ Planned Commercial Development) to RE (Recreation) on 6.5 acres, from R-3/PUD to OS on 0.75 acres, and from C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/ Planned Commercial Development) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) on 20.75 acres, or more restrictive districts. An Addendum to the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (Clearinghouse No. 2007041043) will also be considered; along with the Revised Section 15091 Findings, Revised Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Revised Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program.

The public hearing was opened. Staff report given. Fourteen APPROVED people spoke in favor. Five people spoke in opposition. Both sides WADE ABSENT given a 5 minute rebuttal period. Public hearing closed. Commissioners deliberated.

Motion by Commission Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to approve Public Hearing Item 6.a incorporating recommendations in staff’s memos.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

Planning Director Jacqui Kitchen announced that Doug McIsaac recently resigned as Community Development Director.

Also, Ryan Bland will be leaving the City of Bakersfield to be Planning Director of Aiken, South Carolina.

8. COMMISSION COMMENTS

Commissioner Strong expressed support for local football and soccer teams.

Commissioner Tkac discussed his reason for abstaining from Item 5.d. Commissioner Tkac believed there may be a perceived conflict of interest because he has an association with one of the parties involved with the project.

Commissioner Williams thanked the Bakersfield Police Department for their attendance at tonight’s meeting.

9. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Chair Lomas adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m.

Dana Cornelius Recording Secretary

Jacquelyn R. Kitchen Planning Director

S:\1Planning Commission\PC\Minutes\2016\9.1 draft

COVER SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: Consent Calendar Public Hearing5.(a.)

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacquelyn R. Kitchen PLANNER: Tony Jaquez DATE: WARD: Ward 4 SUBJECT: Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12062 (Phased): Porter & Associates, representing Bolthouse Properties LLC, is requesting an extension of time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map consisting of 16 parcels on approximately 465.93 acres into zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, CO, OS and DI, located south of Stockdale Highway between Nord Avenue and ½ mile east of Heath Road. A Notice of Exemption from CEQA will also be considered. APPLICANT: Porter & Associates Inc. OWNER: Bolthouse Properties, LLC LOCATION: South of Stockdale Highway between Nord Avenue and ½ mile east of Heath Road.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reccommends approval.

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type VTPM 12062 - SR_Res_Maps_NOE - EOT Cover Memo

COVER SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: Consent Calendar Public Hearings5.(b.)

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Planning Director PLANNER: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner DATE: WARD: Ward 6 SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7262 (Phased): McIntosh & Associates, representing Panama Lane Properties, LLC (property owner), is proposing to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 single family residential lots in an R-1(One-Family Dwelling) zone located at the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive in southwest Bakersfield. A proposed Negative Declaration will also be considered. APPLICANT: McIntosh & Associates OWNER: Panama Lane Properties, LLC LOCATION: Southeast corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive in southwest Bakersfield.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Staff Report Resolution Resolution Neg Dec - Initial Study Backup Material Air Quality Study Backup Material Cultural Resource Study Backup Material APCD Letter Backup Material

VTTM 7262

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

McIntosh & Associates, representing Panama Lane Properties, LLC (property owner), is proposing to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 single family residential lots in an R-1(One-Family Dwelling) zone located at the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive in southwest Bakersfield, including a request for alternate lot and street design, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060.A.1.

Figure 2: SITE VISIT PHOTO View Looking Southwest Across The Project Site

Background & Timeline:

May 8, 1991: Pre-Zoning. City Council adopted Ordinance 3361 pre-zoning the project site and adjacent property in anticipation of annexation to the City. The project site was zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) upon the effective date of the annexation.

November 20, 1991: Annexation. The project site and surrounding area annexed to the City as a part of the Ashe No. 2 Annexation (Annexation # 354).

Analysis:

The proposed vesting tentative tract subdivision consists of 287 lots on 80.5 acres for purposes of single family development. Typical lot size is 70 feet wide by 110 feet deep (7,700 square feet). The net density is 5.23 dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation of the project site of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre. The application was deemed complete on October 6, 2016.

High Pressure Gas Line. There is a high pressure gas transmission easement that traverses the northern portion of the project site generally in a northwest-southwest diagonal alignment. While the majority of the easement has been located within a street right-of-way (Wind Wolfs Lane), the easement overlaps significantly into the side yards of several proposed lots (Lot 25 of Phase 1; Lots 20 and 35 of Phase 2). The Fire Prevention Director has found that the amount of encroachment of the high pressure gas line easement extending into these side yards poses a health and safety risk.

Prepared by jeng / S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 sr-pc.docx Page 2 of 6 September 29, 2016 VTTM 7262

Staff has advised the applicant of this concern and the need to redesign a portion of the project; however, the applicant has requested that the project be considered by your Commission at this time. Therefore, Staff has included Condition No. 22 to require redesign of the street and lot configuration to reduce the overlap of the easement into residential lots. Regarding Lot 20 in Phase 2, Staff recommends that the design extend the street cul-de-sac at the north end of Wind Wolfs Lane to the tract boundary, thus significantly reducing or eliminating overlap of the easement with the residential lot. Upon redesign of the project, the subdivider may request that the alternative redesign be reviewed administratively by Staff via Substantial Conformance, if the design meets that criteria. However, if the re-design does not meet that criteria, the applicant will be required to process a revised TTM which will require an additional public hearing before your Commission. The applicant has been advised of these requirements. Condition 22.2.2 provides design guidelines.

Relationship to Surrounding Uses:

The project site is designated Low Density Residential by the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. A fully developed single family home neighborhood is located on the north side of Panama Lane. Vacant land is to the east, west and south sides of the project site; however, three tentative tract maps have been approved for single family residential development. The site is surrounded by:

Table A. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts LAND USE ZONING EXISTING DIRECTION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE NORTH LR R-1 Existing single family residential SOUTH LR R-1 Vacant; approved VTTM 6873 EAST LR R-1(4.5); R-1 Vacant; approved VTTM 7263 WEST LR R-1 Vacant; approved VTTM 7261 Land Use Designations: LR: < 7.26 du/na

Consistency/Deviation from Design Standards:

The applicant has requested the following modifications or deviations from City standards.

Table B. Summary of Modification Requests MODIFICATION APPLICANT’S STAFF COMMENT / REQUEST REASON / JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Reverse corner/key lots Lot and street design Approve restricted by project boundary and road alignments. Double frontage lots Design for residential lots to Approve. See paragraph obtain access from interior below. local streets.

The subdivision includes double frontage lots located along Panama Lane (arterial street), Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road, collector streets. BMC Section 16.28.170 H allows the

Prepared by jeng / S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 sr-pc.docx Page 3 of 6 September 29, 2016 VTTM 7262

Planning Commission flexibility in determining the appropriateness of double frontage lots with considerations to design options and street functions. The proposed double frontage lots shown on the tentative map are reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Staff is of the opinion the proposed double frontage lots depicted on the tentative map are consistent with said section, and a finding is provided in attached resolution (Exhibit “A”) to facilitate approval. Staff recommends Condition No. 1.1 requiring waiver of direct access onto Panama Lane, Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road. A block wall and landscaping these same streets are also required.

Circulation:

The City's Bikeway Master Plan identifies Panama Lane as a Class 2 facility (bike lanes). Bike lanes do not currently exist and at the time the property is developed, lane striping will be required with the construction of street improvements. However, the Traffic Engineer will evaluate if striping should be delayed if its installation will compromise public safety (e.g. short lengths of unconnected bike lanes that would confuse drivers and cyclists increasing the likelihood of accidents). Striping would then occur at the time the City added bike lanes along the street with connections to the existing bikeway network. GETBus Route 61 travels along Harris Road at Reliance Drive, approximately ½ mile north of the project site. Route 61 connects with other bus routes at CSUB. Figure 3. Aerial Photo

Park Land In-Lieu Fees/Dedication:

The City of Bakersfield provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest existing park to the subdivision is Silver Creek Park located about ½ mile north of the project site. Staff recommends payment of in-lieu fees to satisfy the park land requirement of BMC Chapter 15.80 (Condition No. 15).

Prepared by jeng / S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 sr-pc.docx Page 4 of 6 September 29, 2016 VTTM 7262

Mineral Rights:

The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1. The preliminary title report indicates that by recorded document, the mineral rights owners have waived their right to surface entry. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map.

Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources submitted a letter stating the project site is beyond their administrative boundaries of any oil or gas fields. There are no known wells on the property and no known active operator of record. If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must consult with the Division regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Based upon an initial environmental assessment, Staff has determined the project will not significantly affect the physical environment or existing residential development in the area, therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared and is attached as Attachment “B.”

Insight Environmental Consultants prepared an “Air Quality Impact Analysis for Tract 7262” (dated February 2016) (see Initial Study Attachment) in accordance with the Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s “Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality Impacts, (GAMAQI) latest version.” The study included analysis of construction-related, project-related mobile source, and area source Emissions. Total project mitigated emissions on an annual basis by limiting construction to one phase per year from 2017 to 2022. Emissions for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) were below APCD’s 10 tons per year threshold. As a mitigation measure to monitor the annual emissions, the subdivider will be required to provide evidence that an Indirect Source Report (ISR) agreement with the APCD has been approved (Condition/Mitigation Measure No. 24). The study recommends measures for construction equipment exhaust, fugitive dust, and mobile sources which were incorporated into the assumptions made for this project (Condition/Mitigation Measure No.25). The APCD has reviewed the Initial Study and air quality study. APCD agrees with the findings of the air quality study, and does not object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Their letter (attached) has been forwarded to the application to notify the applicant of District Rules and Regulations that the project may be subject.

Prior to ground disturbance, the subdivider shall have a qualified consultant survey the location for kit fox, and comply with the provisions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. (Condition/Mitigation Measure No. 26 and 27).

Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates prepared a “Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for Anton Home Place” (May 2005; Revised September 2007) that identified two cultural resources located approximately ¼ mile west of the project site. The Antongiovanni House (demolished since 2007) and a portion of the Stine Canal were located near the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Gosford Road. The Survey determined these resources are not considered significant, are not listed or have been deemed eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.). No further archeological study is necessary for the project site. However,

Prepared by jeng / S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 sr-pc.docx Page 5 of 6 September 29, 2016 VTTM 7262 if cultural resources are uncovered during ground disturbance, a qualified archeologist must be consulted (Condition/Mitigation Measure No. 28).

Noticing:

Notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield for the project with the associated proposed Negative Declaration was advertised in the newspaper and posted on the bulletin board of the Bakersfield City Planning Department. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified about the hearing and the proposed subdivision at least 20 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with State law. The applicant has provided proof that signs giving public notice of the proposed tract map were posted on the property 20 to 60 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission.

Conclusion:

As noted above, the applicant has requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7262 to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 lots, ranging in size from 7,700 square feet to 13,000 square feet, in an R-1(One-Family Dwelling) zone. The purpose of this request is to develop single family homes. The second component of the request is for revers/key lots and double frontage lots.

With regard to the first component of the request, Staff finds that subdivision of the 80.5 acre parcel into 287 lots for single family home development is appropriate and Staff recommends approval of VTTM 7262 as requested.

With regard to the second component of the request, Staff finds that deviations from standards are reasonable, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding development. Therefore, Staff concludes that VTTM 7262 and recommends approval of the request for alternate design.

Exhibits: (Attached)

A. Resolution with Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval B. Location Map with Zoning C. Tentative Map

B. CEQA – Initial Study/Negative Declaration

Prepared by jeng / S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 sr-pc.docx Page 6 of 6 September 29, 2016 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7262 (PHASED) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PANAMA LANE AND RELIANCE DRIVE.

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates representing Panama Lane Properties, LLC , filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7262(the “Project”), and a modification request to allow reverse corner/key lots and double frontage lots, consisting of 287 lots on 80.5 acres to develop single family residential, as shown on attached Exhibit “A”, located at the southwest corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive, as shown on attached Exhibit “C; and

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on August 5, 2016; and

WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted that determined the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and special studies (if any), and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

Page 1 of 3 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the application is a project under CEQA and an initial study and a Negative Declaration were prepared and duly noticed for public review.

3. A Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to air quality, biological resource and cultural resource impacts have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

4. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems. Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.

5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent with the low density residential land use classification on the property. Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan.

6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A. 1. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners’ signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1., the party’s right of surface entry has been by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.

7. In accordance with BMC 16.28.170 H, Panama Lane, Berkshire Road and Reliance Dr. functions as a major street as shown on the Project, therefore the abutting double frontage lots are reasonable due to controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance, and setback, and are approved with construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall separating the residential lot and the major street.

8. The request for modification(s) is consistent with sound engineering practices or subdivision design features.

9. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for the public health, welfare, and safety.

Page 2 of 3

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield as follows:

1. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved.

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7262, is hereby approved with conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on October 6, 2016, on a motion by Commissioner _____and seconded by Commissioner ______, by the following vote.

AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

APPROVED

BARBARA LOMAS, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Location Map Exhibit C: Tentative Map

By jeng \ \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 pc-res.docx

Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT “A” VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7262 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with requirements and deadlines listed in the “FOR YOUR INFORMATION” packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. In a letter dated June 10, 2016, the applicant requested deviations from the following ordinance and policy requirements: 1.1. BMC 16.28.170 H - Request - Modification to allow double frontage in Unit 1 lots 1-7, 11 &12; Unit 2 lots 1-13 & 17-20; Unit 4 lots 1; Unit 5 lots 22-23; Unit 6, lots 1 & 35; Unit 7 lots 23-25; Unit 8, lots 1-10 & 27-34. Recommendation – APPROVE the request. Access will be prohibited on Panama Lane, Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road by a waiver of direct access and block walls. 1.2. BMC 16.28.170 P - Request - Modification to allow reverse corner lots in Unit 1 lots 9, 31 &35; Unit 2 lots 14, 22 & 43; Unit 3 lot 1; Unit 4 lot 26; Recommendation – No comment.

2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.

3. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval: 3.1. A drainage study for the entire subdivision. 3.2. A drainage plan for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 3.3. For a private tract, the sump must be private and shall be privately maintained. 3.4. A sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision and showing what surrounding areas may be served by the main line extensions. 3.5. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s and the County of Kern’s NPDES permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a treatment and source BMP’s. Said BMP’s shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.

4. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans: 4.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission. 4.2. Per Resolution 035-13 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the “complete streets” policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap

By eng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 2 of 13

less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required. 4.3. The subdivider shall construct the full width landscaped median island in Panama Lane for the site’s frontage. 4.4. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations. 4.5. In addition to other paving requirements, on and off site road improvements may be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development), where warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question. 4.6. Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer.

5. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of a final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase. 5.1.1. The following shall occur with Phase 1: 5.1.1.1. Construct Panama Lane to full City Arterial Standards including the median for the full extent of the street lying within the tract’s boundary. 5.1.1.2. Construct Reliance Drive to full ½ width from Panama Lane to Emerald Green Avenue. 5.1.1.3. Remove or relocate existing irrigation facilities at the intersection of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive within the right of way. 5.1.1.4. Reconstruct the existing traffic signal at Reliance Drive and Panama Lane to the ultimate location. 5.1.2. The following shall occur with Phase 4: 5.1.2.1. Construct Reliance Drive from Emerald Green to Berkshire Road to full City Collector Standards for the full extent of the street lying within the tract’s boundary. 5.1.3. The following shall occur with Phase 6: 5.1.3.1. Construct Berkshire Road to full City Collector Standards for the full extent of the street lying within the tract’s boundary.

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 3 of 13

and extent of improvements to be constructed with each phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.

Or, if the number of phases and phase boundary lines are not shown on the tentative map, then prior to the submission of improvement plans, the developer shall supply to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the proposed phases and phase boundary lines. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each phase.

5.2. The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within the boundary if not to standard. 5.3. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12’ lanes, 2-4’ paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface. 5.4. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24, 1997. 5.5. In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required. 5.6. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and/or slatted chain link fence and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors. 5.7. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.

6. The following must be reflected in the final map design: 6.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors; Panama Lane, Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road.

7. Prior to recording the first final map: 7.1. The City Council must have taken final action for inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District. 7.2. The developer is required to construct an improvement (Panama Lane) which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee. The developer may receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the right-of-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee. 7.3. if it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up- front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 4 of 13

8. All lots with sumps and water well facilities that front arterial or collector streets will have wall and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, and those that front local streets will have a slatted chain link fence with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.

9. Prior to recording each final map: 9.1. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified on the approved drainage study shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided. 9.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City. 9.3. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract. Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including a Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, which shall be signed and notarized.

10. Prior to Notice of Completion: 10.1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.

WATER RESOURCES

11. Prior to construction of in-tract water facilities, plans and specifications shall be approved by the City Water Resources staff.

12. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit a water will serve letter and confirmation from the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department that water fees have been paid to the Water Resources’s satisfaction. The water will serve letter will not be issued until water availability, inspection, and meter fees have been paid in full.

13. Any drainage basins required for the development need to be included with plans in detail to be reviewed for compliance to City of Bakersfield standards and specification by Water Resources staff.

FIRE SAFETY DIVISION

14. Pipeline Easements. Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 5 of 13

notation that structures including accessory buildings and swimming pools, are prohibited within the easements and record a corresponding covenant. 14.1 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable portion of a structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover, and record a corresponding covenant. 14.2 No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets this criteria, the 40 foot setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that is affected. 14.3 No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength. 14.4 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.

Public health, safety and welfare.

RECREATION AND PARKS

15. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall pay an in-lieu fee based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per 1000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Refer to BMC Chapter 15.80 and the Planning Information Sheet regarding calculation and payment of in-lieu fee. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020(d), you are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest the imposition of this fee has begun.

BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay an in-lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City’s park land ordinance. Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.

CITY ATTORNEY

16. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 6 of 13

way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

PLANNING

17. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 66474.2.

18. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than nine (9) phases. Phases shall be identified numerically and not alphabetically.

Orderly development.

19. Mineral Rights: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:

19.1 Subdivider shall submit written evidence that waiver(s) of surface entry has been obtained from 100% of the mineral right interest(s) for the entire area of this tract. Written evidence shall be submitted to the Planning Director in the form of a recorded document such as a grant deed or other instrument approved by the City Attorney. The proposed lots shown underlying the drill site shall be allowed to record subject all other conditions of approval of the tentative map.

19.2 Subdivider does not provide verification to the Planning Director that waiver of surface entry from all mineral rights owners have been obtained, the minimum 2-acre drill site drill site reservation as approved by the Planning Commission shall be recorded with the first final map, and prior to or concurrently with a the final map subdivider shall:

19.2.1 Record a covenant encumbering the drill site as such; 19.2.2 Record a covenant of all lots of this subdivision within 500 feet of the drill site disclosing the drill site location and possible activities; 19.2.3 Construct a six-foot high masonry wall with gate access around the drill site as shown on the tentative tract. However, upon approval by the

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 7 of 13

Planning Director, wall construction may be defer until adjacent residential lots are recorded. Wall height shall be measured to the highest adjacent grade. 19.2.4 Have covenants reviewed approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director prior to recording.

Required to verify compliance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. and orderly development.

20. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). The subdivider is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by DOGGR. Subdivider shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)

Public health, welfare and safety.

21. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of the phase that includes or is within 300 feet of the irrigation well located at the southwest corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive, the subdivider shall have properly abandoned the existing irrigation well and remove all accessory facilities from the site, and submit a letter from the Kern County Environmental Health Department verifying such abandonment.

Public health, welfare and safety.

22. Gas Transmission Easement and Adjacent Lot Design:

22.1 Prior to recordation of Lot 25, Phase 1, and Lot 35 of Phase 2, subdivider shall submit plot plans depicting an adequate building envelope in relation to the 50-foot building setback from the PG&E gas transmission line. The Planning Director may require additional conditions on these lots, including redesign, to ensure the 50-foot setback is observed and each lot maintains an adequate building envelop.

22.2 Prior to recordation of the phase containing Lot 20 in Phase 2, subdivider shall have obtained approval of Substantial Conformance depicting lot and/or street re-design of this lot and if needed adjacent lots and streets to eliminate or significantly reduce the overlap of the PG&E gas transmission easement that traverses the lot. Note: Based on proposed redesign, the Planning Director may require plot plans depicting adequate buildable areas within the lots and verifying redesigned lots meet City standards, and may require other lots and/or streets be redesigned to reduce overlap of the easement into residential lots. 22.2.1 Extend the street cul-de-sac to the tract boundary, thus significantly reducing or eliminating overlap of the easement with the residential lot.

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 8 of 13

22.2.2 Another alternate re-design may be submitted but shall be subject to the following guidelines and reviewed in consultation with the Fire Prevention Director. 22.2.3 Subdivider shall make every effort shall be made in design so that residential lot and street layout are designed to limit overlap of the easement into residential lots. Overlap of the gas easement into a buildable lot shall be as follows, and amount of overlap into the lot may be increased with the approval of the Fire Prevention Director and Planning Director based on adequate justification:  Residential front yard: Maximum overlap is 20-feet.  Residential side yard: Maximum overlap is 10-feet.  Residential rear yard: No overlap allowed unless specifically approved by Fire Prevention Director and Planning Director.  Other buildable lot: Maximum overlap is 20-feet. The Fire Prevention Director and Planning Director may approve greater overlap in specific circumstances and adequate justification is provided to the City.  The gas easement shall be located in a street right-of-way, privately maintained landscape area or other non-buildable lot/feature that is not a sump, as approved by the Fire Prevention Director and Planning Director. Public health, safety and welfare.

23. Modification Requests:

23.1 The request for double frontage lots along Panama Lane, Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road is approved subject to waiver of direct access, construction of wall and landscape per City standard. 23.2 The request for reverse corner/key lots is approved.

Public health, safety and welfare.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures

24. Prior to recordation of each phase, subdivider shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that the project has complied San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 and entered into an Indirect Source Review Agreement (ISR) with the SJVAPCD (or other instrument acceptable to the Planning Director) which limits NOx emissions to less than 10 tons per year. (Mitigation Measure)

25. SJVAPCD Compliance Measures: The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant would be required to implement and comply with a number of measures by regulation and would result in further emission

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 9 of 13

reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures have been applied to the Project as SJVAPCD rules and regulations and conditions of approval and through the CalEEMod model analysis:

a. SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VII measures are as follows: • Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. • Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. • Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. • Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. • Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. • When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. • Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). • Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. • Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. • Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

b. Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust In addition, the GAMAQl guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended: • Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. • Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. • Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight (8) cumulative

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 10 of 13

hours per day. • Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. • Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. • On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. • On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. • All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. • All construction activities within the Project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. • Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage 03 alerts. First stage 03 alerts are declared when the 03 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

c. Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance: • The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. • Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. • The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient • The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the Project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of: o Rapid cure cutback asphalt; o Medium cure cutback asphalt; o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 11 of 13

d. Measures Applied in CalEEMod to the Proposed Project • Improve Destination Accessibility, Distance to Downtown/Job Center; o The Project would be located in an area with high accessibility. According to the SJVAPCD, a project is considered to improve destination accessibility if it is located within 12 miles of downtown or a job center. The Proposed Project is located approximately 2.52 miles from the nearest job center. Destination accessibility is measures in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of a project also increases the potential for pedestrian to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT (CAPCOA 2010). This mitigation is achieved through site selection. • Improve Pedestrian Network (Project site and connecting off-site) ; o Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive, resulting in a reduction in VMT. The Project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the Project site (CAPCOA 2010). • Only Natural Gas Hearth (Residential Only); o The Proposed Project would reduce emissions by including only natural gas fired hearths, which burn cleaner and emit less air pollutants than conventional hearths. • 3% Electric Lawnmower; o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. This measure is likely conservative as it does not include local incentives through the air district such as the lawn mower exchange program, electric mower rebates etc. • 3% Electric Leaf blower; and o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. • 3% Electric Chainsaw o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. (Mitigation Measure)

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 12 of 13

Biological Impact Mitigation Measures

26. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance.

The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre- payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Mitigation Measure)

27. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 – August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

a. To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) by the Project applicant of a subdivision or site plan review, following the survey methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC, 1993). A copy of the survey shall also be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, Planning Division.

b. If the survey results the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading; including staging, clearing, and grubbing, surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

Exhibit “A” VTM 7262 Page 13 of 13

qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the of the Project commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to City of Bakersfield, Planning Division.

c. If any ground disturbing activities will occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the Project footprint, implementation of avoidance measures are warranted. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant must follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). If the Project applicant proposes to evict burrowing owls that may be present, the CDFW recommends passive relocation during the non-breeding season.’ (Mitigation Measure)

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures

28. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately. (Mitigation Measure)

By Jeng \ S:\TRACTS\7262\1PC Staff Report Package\7262 Exh A -Con.docx

R-1 WILLOWCREST KETTLEROCK Y WILD SILVER E E R-1 R-1 R-1 S L SKY G R-1 K MOUNTAIN CT R-1 ROGUE CT S

AVE ST L ARC

R D BIRCH AVE T R-1 AVE R-1 O LEGEND PA A R LAKES DOME I T R-2

CREEK H A F V BRIDGE VESTING T R-1 WOODSFORD LN P IL R C R-1 EA N E AVE H R-1 A TR HIGH PEAKS DR Y O K A (ZONE DISTRICTS) A W T VE YSU D S N W TT AY S PA R-1 STEEPLE FALLEN D R ERS R K SS L T MI T O E ST LL S O S E L TENTATIVE TRACT PINE WAY O N Y T L E ST R K A G H E G U E O R R-2 V W R OWLS R-1 One Family Dwelling A Y O V N C R-1 E L IL T A S R-2 D S I Y C R-1 T V BAYKIRK ST R-1 E C A S A HEAD NEWHALL LN 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size R IND K W W IA A R 7262 P I N G W CT R-1 O L R-1 ULC E R-1 D R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling R-1 F O R-2 IN D H S R P R R-1 E T O R-1 L T R G D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD A E N D N 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size E M A S A E T S S R-2 A R-1 D I A E FLATROCK DR T R E D N M D O W M E Estate B CLOUD E R-1 C N S PEAKCT CABIN CREEK CT

E R-1 I T N

X R I M-2 Q CEDAR ROCKLIN N R-2 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size G O T U WHITE R R-1 TWILIGHT B A N O BRANCHWAY WAY A K BIRCH I

DR R-S Residential Suburban V O IN WAY E HANFORD DR ST R-2 R-1 TWIN T L OAKS G S C T R-1 S A E 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit S K R PEDRICK SLICKROCK DR P T R A E R-1 S R-2 E R-2 R-S-( ) Residential Suburban N C E R-2 G CT G S P T H

N N T I N E I R-1 O RIMRIDGE 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size G D R-1 L N

H U E R O P WAY HAWK CREEK DR R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling EXHIBIT B O L D R S

BREWER CREEK DR R FIREBAUGH ST FIREBAUGH ST C-2 O R-2 SUNRISE 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)

B Y

R-1 O G STARBRIGHT CREST ST TOYON CT E 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)

G R N DEEPWELL R-1 L I R-1 R-1 A DR O O

P 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit E R-2 H HORSETAIL ST AVE B R-1 P R-1 M R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling R-1 HENNESS CT DRIFT CREEK ST C-2/P.C.D. M T R-1 HAZELNUT CT A SILVER MOON C R-1 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size C R-1 DR R-2 PANAMA LN POWDERHORN 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-1 ST R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit M-3 GOLDSTONE DR R-H Residential Holding CITY C-2/P.C.D. 20 acre min lot size COUNTY R-1 (4.5) R-1 A Agriculture

CACTUSDR PATCH 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size FIRE A-20A Agriculture OPAL DR 20 acre min lot size COBALT

R-1 PUD Planned Unit Development DR M-1 C-2/P.C.D. TAHITIAN TT Travel Trailer Park PEARL DR MH Mobilehome C-O Professional and Administrative Office R-1 C-1 Neighborhood Commercial R-1 C-2 Regional Commercial R-1 PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE C-C Commercial Center R-1 C-B Central Business

RELIANCE DR PCD Planned Commercial Development M-1 Light Manufacturing R-1 ASHE RD M-2 General Manufacturing SPARKLER WAYR-1 STAR M-3 Heavy Industrial R-2 SAPPHIRE P Automobile Parking DR RE Recreation R-1 Ch Church Overlay OS Open Space R-2/P.U.D. HOSP Hospital Overlay AD Architectural Design Overlay WAY FP-P Floodplain Primary R-1 AMMOLITE FP-S Floodplain Secondary SMOKY

GOSFORD RD AA Airport Approach BERKSHIRE RD QUARTZ DR DI Drilling Island PE Petroleum Extraction Combining SC Senior Citizen Overlay HD Hillside Development Combining WM- West Ming Specific Plan

R-2 R-1

R-1 R-1

Feet

M-1 M-1 A 0 400 800

Document Name: 2016_08_01 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): Vesting Tentative Map 7262

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: 9/5/2016

COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: 9/26/2016

MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measure

1. Prior to recordation of each phase, subdivider shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that the project has complied San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 and entered into an Indirect Source Review Agreement (ISR) with the SJVAPCD (or other instrument acceptable to the Planning Director) which limits NOx emissions to less than 10 tons per year.

2. SJVAPCD Compliance Measures: The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant would be required to implement and comply with a number of measures by regulation and would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long- term design. The following measures have been applied to the Project as SJVAPCD rules and regulations and conditions of approval and through the CalEEMod model analysis:

A. SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VII measures are as follows:

• Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. • Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. • Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. • Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.

• Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. • When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. • Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). • Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. • Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. • Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period). b. Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust In addition, the GAMAQl guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended: • Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. • Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. • Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight (8) cumulative hours per day. • Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. • Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. • On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. • On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines. • All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. • All construction activities within the Project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. • Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage 03 alerts. First stage 03 alerts are declared when the 03 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

o Rapid cure cutback asphalt; o Medium cure cutback asphalt; o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). d. Measures Applied in CalEEMod to the Proposed Project • Improve Destination Accessibility, Distance to Downtown/Job Center; o The Project would be located in an area with high accessibility. According to the SJVAPCD, a project is considered to improve destination accessibility if it is located within 12 miles of downtown or a job center. The Proposed Project is located approximately 2.52 miles from the nearest job center. Destination accessibility is measures in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of a project also increases the potential for pedestrian to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT (CAPCOA 2010). This mitigation is achieved through site selection. • Improve Pedestrian Network (Project site and connecting off-site) ; o Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive, resulting in a reduction in VMT. The Project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the Project site (CAPCOA 2010). • Only Natural Gas Hearth (Residential Only); o The Proposed Project would reduce emissions by including only natural gas fired hearths, which burn cleaner and emit less air pollutants than conventional hearths. • 3% Electric Lawnmower; o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas- powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. This measure is likely conservative as it does not include local incentives through the air district such as the lawn mower exchange program, electric mower rebates etc. • 3% Electric Leaf blower; and o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas- powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. • 3% Electric Chainsaw o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas- powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure.

Biological Impact Mitigation Measures

1. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance.

The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

2. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 – August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

b. If the survey results the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading; including staging, clearing, and grubbing, surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the of the Project commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to City of Bakersfield, Planning Division.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures

3. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately.

INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): Vesting Tentative Map 7262

2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield, Community Development Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Jennie Eng , Principal Planner (661) 326 – 3043

4. Project Location: Between Panama Ln. and Berkshire Rd., west of Reliance Dr.

5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates, 2001 Wheelan Ct, Bakersfield, CA 93309

6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential

7. Zoning: R-1 (One Family Dwelling)

8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.): A proposed vesting tentative tract map to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 single family residential lots in an R-1(One-Family Dwelling) zone located at the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Reliance Drive in southwest Bakersfield. The project includes a request for alternate lot and street design, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060.A.1.

9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):

The site is flat and undeveloped and previously used as agricultural cropland. Existing single family residential development is located to the north. Vacant land or land used as agricultural cropland is located to the east, south and west of the project site. However, tentative subdivision maps for single family development have been previously approved to the east, south and west, but have not recorded or begun development.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

San Joaquin Valley Air District

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ x b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ x c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? □ □ □ x d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ x □

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project; a) 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? □ □ □ x b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ x c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? □ □ □ x d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest? □ □ □ x e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ x

III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project;

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ x □ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? □ x □ □ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? □ □ x □ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ x □ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ x □

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ x □ □ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ x □ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ x □ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ x e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ x □

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ x □

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? □ □ x □ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ x □ □ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project; a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No.42) □ □ x □ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ x □ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ x □ iv. Landslides? □ □ x □ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ x □ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? □ □ x □ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city’s most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? □ □ x □ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? □ □ x □

VIl. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project; a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ x □ b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ x □

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project;

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ □ x b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? □ □ □ x c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ x d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ x e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ x f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ x g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ x h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? □ □ □ x

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? □ □ □ x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? □ □ □ x c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ □ x d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? □ □ □ x e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? □ □ □ x f) Otherwise, substantially degrade water quality? □ □ □ x g) Place housing 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? □ □ □ x h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ x i) 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 levee or dam? □ □ □ x j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? □ □ □ x

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;

a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ □ x c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? □ □ x □

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ x b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? □ □ □ x

XII. NOISE: Would the project result in;

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ x □ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? □ □ □ x c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? □ □ x □ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? □ □ x □ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ x f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ x

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project;

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services;

i. Fire protection? □ □ □ x ii. Police protection? □ □ □ x iii. Schools? □ □ □ x iv. Parks? □ □ □ x v. Other public facilities? □ □ □ x XV. RECREATION: Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ x b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ x XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project;

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? □ □ x □ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? □ □ x □ c) 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? □ □ □ x d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ x e) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ x f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? □ □ □ x XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? □ □ □ x b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ x c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ x d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? □ □ x □ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ x f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? □ □ □ x g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ x XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ □ □ x b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ □ x c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □ x

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

I. AESTHETICS

a. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of Federal, State or Local Agencies, and is consistent with the City of Bakersfield Zoning and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designations for the project area. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 %. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic”. There is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. No impact.

b. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as “scenic”. No impact.

c. Surrounding land uses include (fill in) (agricultural lands, undeveloped lands, residential homes). The development of (fill in) on the project site would alter the existing landscape and provide development of (fill in structural enhancements ie. 180 single family homes) which is considered compatible with the surrounding uses. The visual alterations will enhance the existing landscape and it is not considered to degrade the site compared to its existing condition. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No impact.

d. This project involves incremental growth of urban development within the City of Bakersfield’s (jurisdiction/ sphere of influence). Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime and will not produce substantial glare. City of Bakersfield development standards including Title 17 (zoning ordinance),Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 require the project comply with current lighting, and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare trespass to neighboring properties. Less than significant impact.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES

a. The project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Rural Land Mapping Edition, Kern County Important Farmland 2012, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. As of December 31, 2011, there were approximately 1.70 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (The California Land Conservation Act, 2012, Status Report). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide significance. No impact.

b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract (or in an area where agricultural uses are located). The project site has a land use designation of Low Density Residential by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and zoned r-1) by the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant is requesting approval of a land division to develop a single family lot subdivision. According to the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance, single family lot development allowed, and is also consistent with the existing land use designation. Therefore, there are no impacts

c. As discussed above, the project site is currently zoned for one-family dwellings. No forestlands exist on the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause the rezoning of forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts on forestland would occur.

d. The project sites and surrounding properties do not contain any forest land. No impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use are expected to occur.

e. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a single family dwelling subdivision on the project site. The proposed project would (Or would not) result in the conversion of land zoned for agriculture to a nonagricultural use. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Less than significant impact.

III. AIR QUALITY

a. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the SJVAPCD (page 16 and Section 6) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements, related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development is consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality strategies for new residential and commercial developments include but are not limited to Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element as well as the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines and Rules. As a result of implementation of project design elements, compliance with local Air Pollution Control District permit requirements, any impacts will remain below a level of significance.

b. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for three (3) specific criteria pollutants in regards to the operation of specific projects, as shown below:

SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants

Air Pollutant Tons/Year Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 10 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10 Particulates (PM10) 15 Particulates (PM2.5) 15

The proposed project would be in compliance with the significance thresholds for ROG (10 tons/year), and PM10 (15 tons/year). The threshold of NOx (10 tons/year) would not be exceed based on construction limited to one phase per year beginning with Phase 1 in 2017 and annually to Phase 8 in 2022. As mitigation to reduce NOx emissions to less than significant, the project shall comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and enter into an Indirect Source Review Agreement (ISR) with the SJVAPCD which limits NOx emissions to less than 10 tons per year.

Additionally, the project applicant intends to comply with the air emissions control measures described in the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts document to control dust and other emissions during construction. Under SJVAPCD CEQA rules, the implementation of these control measures would help reduce impacts from criteria air pollutants to a less than significant level. The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Adherence to dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient to reduce PM10 impacts to less than significant.

c. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the San Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. Under GAMAQI guidelines, any proposed project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulative significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects will exceed air quality standards; the project’s cumulative impacts when considered with existing and future projects are below air quality standards. There are no individual significant adverse air quality related effects and the impact is regarded as less than significant.

d. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The SJVAPCD defines sensitive receptors as locations where there is a risk of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptor is Douglas Miller Elementary School located approximately 1.1 miles away southeast from the project site. However, the proposed project use will not expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure of any substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant impact.

e. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (please refer to the list on page 27, table 4-2, of the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Less than significant impact. f. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively, and Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-058-04 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said documents hereby incorporated by reference). Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees and notify agencies prior to grading in areas of species covered under the permit. With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2019 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2019 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2019 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The vegetative communities found within the project site are not considered sensitive, and provide little to no value for special-status wildlife species. The project has been sited to avoid impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitat types. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to sensitive wildlife species or communities. The project would not interfere with movements of any wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Native resident and/or migratory fish and known native wildlife nursery sites are not present within the project site or area.

b. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is within the MBHCP area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, includes ordinance requirements for all development projects in the HCP area. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact.

c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a significant impact on any wetlands.

e. The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and, therefore, will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. Less than significant impact.

f. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources; see answer to IV.e. above.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

a. There are no resources on the project site that are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code. There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. However, in the “Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for Anton Home Place, May 2005, Revised September 2007)” by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, there are two resources located approximately ¼ mile west of the project site. The Antongiovanni House (demolished since 2007) and a portion of the Stine Canal were located near the southeast corner of Panama Lane and Gosford Road. The Survey determined these resources are not considered significant, are not listed or have been deemed eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.). Less than significant impact.

b. The California Archaeological Inventory (CAI) at California State University Bakersfield has reviewed the existing literature for archaeological resources and reported that the project will not have a significant impact on archaeological resources. No impact.

c. This project site is not located in northeast Bakersfield, the only known unique paleontological resource area within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No significant impacts are noted.

d. The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work shall stop until Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code is met. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.

Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard. Less than significant impact.

a.ii. See answer to VI.a.i.

a.iii. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground water combined with high potential seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to VI.a.i.

a.iv. See answer to VI.a.i.

b. The soil types prevalent on the project site are listed in the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1988). the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1988). Based on the soil survey, the project site includes soil types Granoso sandy loam (42%) and Kimberlina fine sandy loam (58%). The characteristics of the soil types include draining well and little ability to form a slope. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Less than significant impact.

c. See answers to VI.a.i. and VI.a.ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard.

d. See answer to VI.b.

e. See answer to VI.b.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

a. 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. Although the proposed Project is expected to emit greenhouse gases, the emission of greenhouse gases by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of greenhouse gas from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s greenhouse gas emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the potential impacts from the proposed project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.

Global climate change is an issue where the causes and effects are not just regional or statewide, but worldwide. Any project’s GHG emissions 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. According to the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project, the project will potentially contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. However, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, given the efforts made to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 9SQVAPCD) Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and other statewide regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. With proposed design measures, state regulation and air quality regulation implemented, GHG emissions will be reduced by at least 29% per the CARB scoping plan and SJVAPCD guidance, in compliance with AB 32, and impacts will remain below a level of significance.

The effects of project specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and unless appropriately reduced or mitigated their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered significant. The City of Bakersfield requires all new projects with increased GHG emissions to implement performance based standards, or otherwise demonstrate that project specific GHG emissions have been reduced or mitigated by at least 29%. As identified in the Global Climate Change analysis prepared for the project, the following design features/performance standards will reduce GHG emissions by at least 29%:  Improve Destination Accessibility, Distance to Downtown /Job Center  Improve Pedestrian Network  Only Natural Gas Hearth (Residential only)  3% Electric Lawnmower  3% Electric Leaf Blower  3% electric Chainsaw g. Because the project applicant is implementing the operational measures/BPSs as suggested by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate. Implementation of these measures also ensures that the project is in compliance with the Climate Change Action Plan being implemented by the SJVAPCD. Less than significant impact. b. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. According to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, there must be a statewide reduction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 29 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020 (baseline: 2002-2004 average emissions). In addition, per SB375 requirements, CARB has adopted regional reduction targets; they call for a 5 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2020 and 10 percent reduction in 2035 within the San Joaquin Valley, using 2005 as the baseline. These regional reduction targets will be a part of the Kern COG Sustainable Communities Strategy. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the guidance: Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy: District Policy – Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. As proposed, the project will not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB32 and SB375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. The project achieves “business-as-usual” GHG emissions reduction equal to or greater than the 29% targeted reduction goal CARB defines “business-as-usual” as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.” The proposed project is consistent with these statewide measures and considered not significant or cumulatively considerable under CEQA. As such, impacts from GHG emissions are considered less than significant.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

a. The record does not indicate that this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. No significant impact.

b. See answer to VIII.a.

c. The record does not support a finding that this project or this category of projects has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous emissions at a level which is potentially significant. No significant impact.

d. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No significant impact is identified.

e. This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which covers all of Kern County. No significant impact is identified.

f. The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No significant impact is identified.

g. The proposed project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (January 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. No significant impact

h. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No significant impacts are identified.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. No significant impact is identified.

b. The proposed development will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area nor would it interfere with the groundwater recharge of the aquifer, therefore the impact to groundwater supplies would be considered less than significant. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department has provided a Water Availability Letter (12/9/2015) indicate water services are available to be provide to the project. The project may be required to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is not regarded as significant.

c. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. Existing drainage patterns will not be significantly altered. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on-site and off-site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. No significant impact is identified.

d. See answer to IX.c.

e. See answer to IX.c.

f. See answer IX.a.

g. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No significant impact is noted.

h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No significant impact is noted.

i. The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area or the 100-year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (Safety Element).

j. The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mud flow. No significant impact is noted.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

a. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern or is an infill development that does not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. No significant impact is noted. See Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES

LAND USE ZONING EXISTING DIRECTION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE NORTH LR R-1 Existing single family residential SOUTH LR R-1 Vacant EAST LR R-1(4.5); R-1 Vacant WEST LR R-1 Vacant Land Use Designations: LR: < 7.26 du/na Zoning Districts : R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) ; R-1 (4.5) (One-Family Dwelling-4,500 square foot minimum lot))

b. The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The record does not indicate that there are identified environment conflicts or inconsistencies with said policies or zoning regulations. No significant environmental impacts are noted.

c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

a) The project is not located within a California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, or the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impact.

b. See answer to XI.a.

XII. NOISE

a. The proposed project is compatible with existing land uses in the project area and areas immediately adjoining the project parcel. Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise in excess of those standards found in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The impact is not regarded as significant.

b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground borne vibration or noise. No significant impacts are noted.

c. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation will result in a 20-decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space. In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The project is not anticipated to expose people to severe noise levels and existing ordinance requirements will reduce noise impacts to less than significant.

d. Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels is less than significant.

f. This project is not located within the 5,000 feet of any private airstrip. Therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No significant impact.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2.

TABLE 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

PROPOSED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNITS POPULATION LAND USE HOUSEHOLD

Single-Family 287 du 3.10 890

Source: 2010 Federal Census

b. The project would not displace any existing housing. The project site is currently vacant. No significant impacts are noted.

c. The project would not result in the displacement of any persons. See answer to XIII.b. above. No significant impacts are noted.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The projected increase of 890 new residents and 287 new structures into the City. Though the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.

b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.09 officers for every 1,000 people in the City. The projected increase of 890 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of 0.97 law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.

c. The proposed development could produce 287 dwellings units and generate approximately 178 school age children as indicated in Table 3. This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant.

TABLE 3 SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION

TYPE AND NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL PUPILS DWELLING K - 8 9 - 12 UNITS Single-Family 287 x 0.62 = 178 287 x 0.23 = 66 245 (a) units Source: 2000 Federal Census; Student Generation Rates - 2003 Kern County Office of Education [CG – these are outdated, each school district has their own rates which I try to keep current copies of in S:/Cecelia/School Rates]

d. The project proposes a population increase of 890 people and may result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Total park acreage estimated for the project is (pop. x 0.0025) acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. (Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.80 and 15.82. The impact is not considered significant.

e. Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are deemed insignificant.

XV. RECREATION

a. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.).

b. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.).

XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

a. No trip generation analysis or traffic study was prepared for the project because proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Potential traffic generated from the project has been included in the analysis of the adoption of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and no further analysis is required. Although the project may cause an incremental increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods, the impact is not considered significant because the proposal would not degrade the existing Level of Service (LOS) of adjacent and area roads. Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of Bakersfield to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. These

measures would be implemented at the time the project site is developed. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development would be addressed according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all on-site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed. Less than significant impact.

b. See answer to XVI.a.

c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No significant impacts.

d. All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No significant impact noted.

e. The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency’s ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No significant impact noted.

f. The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent with any policies or programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impact fees which in part are used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET).

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a. This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No potential significant impacts have been identified.

b. The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.

c. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact.

d. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of water utilities would be required to serve this development. A water will serve letter is on file. Less than significant.

e. The City of Bakersfield is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No significant impact is noted.

f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No significant impact is noted.

g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVII.f. No significant impact is noted.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2801permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment.

b. As described in the response above, the proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing to develop a single family lot subdivision.

c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST

1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003

2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002

3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002

4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991

5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994

6. Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern

7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, and Title 16, Subdivision Map Act of the Bakersfield Municipal Code

8. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000

9. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002 as updated

10. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by : David Taussig & Associates

11. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures

12. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan

13. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan

14. Kern County, California - Soil Survey

15. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996, as amended on August 29, 2007.

16. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella.

17. Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR.

18. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).

19. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.

20. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

21. City of Bakersfield, Vaughn, Cal Water and East Niles Community Services, Urban Water Management Plans

22. “Air Quality Impact Analysis Tract 7262, February 2016”, Insight Environmental Consultants.

23. “Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for Anton Home Place, May 2005, Revised September 2007)” by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates.

24. Water Availability Letter (12/9/2015 from the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department.

Air Quality Impact Analysis

Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project NWC Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road Project # 150505.0191

Prepared for:

McIntosh & Associates, Inc. 2001 Wheelan Court Bakersfield, CA 93309

Prepared by:

5500 Ming Avenue, Suite 140 Bakersfield, California 93309 661-282-2200

February 2016

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………………. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3.0 BACKGROUND OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ...... 2 4.0 EXISTING SETTING ...... 3 5.0 CLIMATE ...... 8 6.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 9 7.0 PROJECT-RELATED EMISSIONS ...... 12 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 19 9.0 IMPACTS TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 24 10.0 CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN ...... 29 11.0 MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES ...... 33 12.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION...... 35 13.0 APPENDICES ...... 37 14.0 REFERENCES...... 38

Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Insight Environmental Consultants, Inc., a Trinity Consultants Company, has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for Tract 7262 Residential Project (Project). The Project would be located in the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield, on the northwest corner of Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road. It would be located approximately 3.2 miles west of Highway 99, and 6.8 miles southwest of central Bakersfield.

The proposed 80.5 acre residential Project includes construction and operations of up to 287 single family residences.

The Project would be built in eight phases with construction beginning in January 2017 and full buildout anticipated for January 2023. The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (automobile activity from residents and visitors) and area sources (incidental activities related to permanent utilities for the residences). Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2013).

Tables 7-1, 7-2, 9-1 and 9-2 present the Project’s construction, operational and GHG emissions and provide substantial evidence to support a less than significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).

Cumulative impacts were also evaluated. Records search of the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (BPD) Tentative Tract Map, Kern County GIS Geocortex IMP Map Viewer, and the City of Bakersfield Cumulative Projects Map identified 24 other projects within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project. A one-mile radius is established in practice as the geographical requirement for cumulative analyses. To date, there are no established thresholds of significance for cumulative projects. By virtue of location within the Bakersfield City limits, it is assumed that all projects identified within the cumulative search will comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which contains, “…concepts and policies which assist in reducing the amount of pollution from mobile sources” (City of Bakersfield 2007). Additionally, compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) is presumably required by all projects’ located within the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction. Because projects included in the cumulative analysis presumably comply with the requirements of one or both of these plans, the Project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is considered less than significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) (SJVAPCD 2015).

Insight Environmental Consultants Page ii Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015a), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).

2.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Western Properties is proposing the development of Tract 7262, a residential project (Project). The proposed 80.5-acre residential Project would include up to 287 single-family residences. The Project would be located in the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield, on the northwest corner of Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road. It would be located approximately 3.2 miles west of Highway 99, and 6.8 miles southwest of central Bakersfield. Figure 2-1 depicts the Project location.

Proposed Project Location

Figure 2-1 - Regional and Project Location

Construction of the proposed Project would begin in January of 2017. The Project would be built in eight phases with each phase lasting approximately 9 months and constructing approximately 36 single family residences. Full buildout is anticipated for January 2023.

Figure 2-2 depicts the Project site’s topography based on United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map (USGS 2012). The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 150 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the north and agricultural fields to the east, south and west. Currently the Project site is agricultural fields.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 1 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Proposed Project Location

Figure 2-2 – Project Site Topography (USGS 2012)

3.0 BACKGROUND OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Protection of the public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene) and visibility reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in nonattainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP's) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Kern County are presented in Section 4.0 below and further details are included in Attachments A, B, C and D.

Responsibility for regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the 35 local air districts with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 2 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified”, in “attainment” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.

4.0 EXISTING SETTING

The Project area is located in the SJVAB portion of Kern County and which is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the plan area.

Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Kern County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as nonattainment/extreme, nonattainment/severe, nonattainment, attainment/unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 4-1 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS. Table 4-2 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 4-1 - SJVAB Attainment Status

Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb

O3, 1-hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe

O3, 8-hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment

PM10 Attainmentc Nonattainment

PM2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified

NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment

SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Pb (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment

H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Visibility Reducing particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment Source: SJVAPCD 2016

Note: a See 40 CFR Part 81 b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210 c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 3 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 4-2 - Federal & California Standards NAAQS CAAQS Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration 8-Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) O3 1-Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)

8-Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) CO 1-Hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 20 ppm (23 mg/m3)

Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) NO2 1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)

3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3 )

3 3 SO2 24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m ) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m )

1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3

Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour 35 µg/m3

Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3

Rolling Three-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 Pb d 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3

3 H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m )

Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)

Visibility Reducing particles 8 Hour (1000 to 1800 PST) b ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m 3= micrograms per cubic meter ppb = parts per billion Source: CARB 2015 a On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm b In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 4 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

The SJVAPCD along with the CARB operates an air quality monitoring network that provides information on average concentrations of those pollutants for which state or Federal agencies have established NAAQS and CAAQS. Information from the monitoring stations is available from the SJVAPCD (2016a). The monitoring stations in the San Joaquin Valley are depicted in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1 – SJVAPCD Monitoring Network

Existing Air Quality For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in the closest proximity to the Project site. Table 4-3 provides the background concentrations for O3, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb as of February 2016. Information is provided for the Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue, Bakersfield – 410 East Planz Road, Bakersfield-Municipal Airport, Bakersfield – Golden State Highway, Oildale – 3311 Manor Street, Arvin – Di Giorgio, Fresno – 1st Street and Sacramento – Del Paso Manor monitoring stations for 2012 through 2014. No data is available for H2S, Vinyl Chloride or other toxic air contaminants in Kern County.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 5 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 4-3 - Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard Pollutant and 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 Monitoring Station Location O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 0.102 0.107 0.102 9 3 3 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.120 0.109 0.108 33 6 10 Arvin – Di Giorgio 0.122 0.109 0.109 31 14 15 O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.07 ppm) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 0.096 0.099 0.093 83 47 93 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.108 0.103 0.095 75 56 60 Arvin – Di Giorgio 0.101 0.095 0.092 85 68 69 O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.075 ppm) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 0.095 0.098 0.092 56 22 20 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.107 0.102 0.095 61 23 32 Arvin – Di Giorgio 0.101 0.094 0.091 53 34 36 PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 125.8 116.9 419.5 55 16 69 Oildale – 3311 Manor St. 94.7 138.0 335.6 12 27 20 PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 99.6 120.7 430.1 0 0 1 Oildale – 3311 Manor St. 91.1 134.3 336.4 0 0 3 PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 86.5 111.7 101.9 22 44 37 Bakersfield – 410 E Planz Road 52.5 167.3 91.0 7 15 15 Bakersfield – Golden State Hwy. * * 107.2 0 0 2 CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm) Fresno – 1st St. 2.22 * * 0 0 0 NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 0.064 0.055 0.060 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.065 0.065 0.064 0 0 0 NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 0.064 0.055 0.061 0 0 0 Bakersfield – Municipal Airport 0.065 0.065 0.064 0 0 0 SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) Sacramento – Del Paso Manor 0.002 0.002 * * * * Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3) Bakersfield – 5588 California Ave. 14 6.7 14 * * * Source: CARB 2016. Notes: ppm= parts per million * There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.

The following is a description of criteria air pollutants, typical sources and health effects and the recently documented pollutant levels in the Project vicinity.

Ozone (O3) The SJVAB has high concentrations of O3 and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere create O3. The “ozone season” therefore typically spans from April through October. O3 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 6 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

reaction process. The data presented in Table 4-3 shows that the Bakersfield area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS from 2012 through 2014.

Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Both NAAQS and CAAQS now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10). Since the smaller diameter fraction of total suspended particulates are documented to represent the greatest health hazard, EPA has established NAAQS for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for NAAQS PM2.5.

Dust and fumes from industrial and agricultural operations generate particulate matter. Natural activities, such as wind-raised dust, fires and ocean spray, also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere. The largest source of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kern County is vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads from demolition and construction activities and farming operations. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Very small particulates may contain absorbed gases that produce injury to the respiratory tract. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also damage a wide range of materials. Table 4-3 shows that PM10 levels exceeded the CAAQS during 2012 through 2014, exceeded the NAAQS in 2014, and exceeded the PM2.5 NAAQS from 2012 through 2014 at the Bakersfield area stations. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline- powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract, but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility or materials. Table 4-3 reports no exceedances at the Fresno monitoring station during the three-year period from 2012 through 2014. Bakersfield monitoring stations no longer monitor CO, however historically Bakersfield monitoring station data for CO has been below the CAAQS and NAAQS.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the county's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO2. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 7 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants. Table 4-3 shows that neither the Federal nor State NO2 standards have been exceeded at the Bakersfield area-monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2012 through 2014. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Kern County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight. Table 4-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Sacramento. Additionally, no data has been recorded at any monitoring stations in Bakersfield.

Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Bakersfield are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 4-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

5.0 CLIMATE

The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest. Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down- valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (oF). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high- pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 8 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. Table 5-1 presents average precipitation data recorded at the Bakersfield monitoring station. Over the 78-year period from October of 1937 through January of 2015 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 6.17 inches.

Table 5-1 – Bakersfield Weather Data

Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 10/01/1937 to 1/20/2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Maximum 57.4 63.6 69.0 75.7 84.2 92.1 98.6 96.7 91.0 80.5 67.3 57.8 77.8 Temp (F) Average Minimum 38.5 42.1 45.4 49.7 56.6 63.3 69.2 67.7 63.1 54.0 44.1 38.5 52.7 Temp (F) Average Total 1.04 1.16 1.12 0.67 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.59 0.85 6.17 Precip.(in.) Average Snowfall 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (in.) Average Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Depth (in.) Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2016. Notes: Percent of possible observations for period of record: Max. Temp.: 99.6% Min. Temp.: 99.6% Precipitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 92.4% Snow Depth: 92.2%

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, state and federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:

 Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA.  Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review).  Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits.  Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 9 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability.

Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts Under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:

 Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard;  Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors);  Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or  Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance Significance Level Criteria Pollutant Construction Operational CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr Source: SJVAPCD 2015

Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 4-2) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts on both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “non-attainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 10 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:

 Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors, and  Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 6-3 presents the thresholds of significance uses with TACs when evaluating HAPs.

Table 6-3 Measures of Significance – TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS (TACs) Agency Level Description Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one Carcinogens million. Non-Carcinogens Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally SJVAPCD Exposed Individual. Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Source: SJVAPCD 2015

Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:

 Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.  Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.  Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guideline, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.  Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU*), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 11 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

 Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

7.0 PROJECT-RELATED EMISSIONS

This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated separately for each residential phase because each phase has a different anticipated starting operational year. The CalEEMod standard defaults were applied for the emissions estimates except for the following:

 Land use lot acreage was adjusted to match actual Project acreage1;  Demolition construction phase was removed;  Grading and construction phases were reduced in order to meet the Project Applicant’s construction schedule; and  Operational fleet mix for residential was adjusted to match the District-approved residential fleet mix for the specified year of operation.

Short-Term Emissions Short-term emissions are primarily from the construction phase of a project and are recognized to be short in duration and without lasting impacts on air quality.

The Project applicant did not provide a list of specific construction equipment; the analysis applied the default CalEEMod equipment list. Many variables are factored into the calculation of construction emissions including length of the construction period, number of each type of equipment, site characteristics, area climate, and construction personnel activities. All equipment was assumed to be in use for the Project in accordance with the default CalEEMod specified hours per day and load factors. SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects include:

 Water exposed area 3 times per day; and  Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

Table 7-1 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

1 The total project acreage (80.5 acres) was divided evenly between the 8 phases. Therefore, each phase was modeled as 10.06 acres.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 12 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

TABLE 7-1 – Short-Term Project Emissions Emissions Pollutant (tons/year)1 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated Phase 1 (2017) 0.94 3.02 2.17 0.00 0.35 0.25 Phase 2 (2017) 0.13 1.32 0.94 0.00 0.23 0.15 Phase 2 (2018) 0.78 1.49 1.19 0.00 0.10 0.09 Phase 3 (2018) 0.21 1.93 1.49 0.00 0.28 0.18 Phase 3 (2019) 0.68 0.64 0.56 0.00 0.04 0.04 Phase 4 (2019) 0.86 2.39 2.00 0.00 0.30 0.21 Phase 5 (2020) 0.84 2.17 1.95 0.00 0.29 0.19 Phase 6 (2020) 0.10 0.96 0.82 0.00 0.21 0.12 Phase 6 (2021) 0.73 1.10 1.11 0.00 0.07 0.06 Phase 7 (2021) 0.15 1.45 1.36 0.00 0.24 0.15 Phase 7 (2022) 0.66 0.46 0.53 0.00 0.03 0.02 Phase 8 (2022) 0.78 1.76 1.87 0.00 0.28 0.16 Mitigated Phase 1 (2017) 0.94 3.02 2.17 0.00 0.26 0.21 Phase 2 (2017) 0.13 1.32 0.94 0.00 0.14 0.1 Phase 2 (2018) 0.78 1.49 1.19 0.00 0.1 0.09 Phase 3 (2018) 0.21 1.93 1.49 0.00 0.18 0.14 Phase 3 (2019) 0.68 0.64 0.56 0.00 0.04 0.04 Phase 4 (2019) 0.86 2.39 2.00 0.00 0.21 0.16 Phase 5 (2020) 0.84 2.17 1.95 0.00 0.19 0.14 Phase 6 (2020) 0.10 0.96 0.82 0.00 0.11 0.08 Phase 6 (2021) 0.73 1.1 1.11 0.00 0.07 0.06 Phase 7 (2021) 0.15 1.45 1.36 0.00 0.14 0.10 Phase 7 (2022) 0.66 0.46 0.53 0.00 0.03 0.02 Phase 8 (2022) 0.78 1.76 1.87 0.00 0.17 0.12 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Is Threshold Exceeded For a Single Year NO NO NO NO NO NO After Mitigation? Source: Insight Environmental Consultants 2016 Note: Emissions equaling 0.00 could represent emissions <0.005.

As calculated with CalEEMod using the default equipment listing, the estimated short-term emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would therefore be less than significant.

Long-Term Operations Emissions Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components.

Fugitive Dust Emissions Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 13 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

PM10 on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimizing fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):

 Rule 4102 - Nuisance  Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions . Rule 8011 - General Requirements . Rule 8021 - Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities . Rule 8041 - Carryout and Trackout . Rule 8051 - Open Areas

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 11, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

Exhaust Emissions Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions.

Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of residents.

The CalEEMod program was used to predict the proposed Project’s operational emissions. CalEEMod is the currently accepted estimation tool for operational emissions impacts in SJVAPCD. As described above, the Project would include construction and operations of up to 287 single family residences. The Project would be built in eight phases with construction beginning in January 2017 and full buildout anticipated for January 2023.

Projected Emissions The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 7-2. The output from the CalEEMod runs are available in Attachment E. Mitigation measures reflected in the emission reductions for Rule 9510, ISR Compliance, include:

 Improve Destination Accessibility, Distance to Downtown/Job Center;  Improve Pedestrian Network (Project site and connecting off-site);  3% Electric Lawnmower;  3% Electric Leaf blower;  3% Electric Chainsaw; and  Use Only Natural Gas Hearths.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 14 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

TABLE 7-2 – Post-Project (Operational) Emissions Emissions Pollutant (tons/year)* Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated Phase 1 (2017) 0.76 0.54 4.52 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 2 (2018) 0.74 0.50 4.29 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 3 (2019) 0.72 0.46 4.11 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 4 (2020) 0.71 0.42 3.98 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 5 (2020) 0.71 0.42 3.98 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 6 (2021) 0.70 0.39 3.88 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 7 (2022) 0.69 0.37 3.78 0.01 0.69 0.42 Phase 8 (2023) 0.67 0.33 3.64 0.01 0.68 0.41 Unmitigated Operational Emissions 1 5.69 3.43 32.19 0.09 5.54 3.33 Mitigated Phase 1 (2017) 0.55 0.50 2.63 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 2 (2018) 0.53 0.46 2.40 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 3 (2019) 0.51 0.42 2.22 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 4 (2020) 0.50 0.39 2.09 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 5 (2020) 0.50 0.39 2.09 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 6 (2021) 0.49 0.35 1.99 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 7 (2022) 0.49 0.33 1.90 0.01 0.38 0.11 Phase 8 (2023) 0.46 0.29 1.76 0.01 0.37 0.11 Mitigated Operational Before ISR 4.04 3.14 17.07 0.04 3.04 0.88 Compliance Reduction Rule 9510 - ISR Compliance Reduction - 0.85 - - 0.27 - Mitigated Operational Emissions 1 4.03 2.29 17.08 0.00 2.77 0.88 SJVAPCD and KCPD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15 Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? NO NO NO NO NO NO Source: Insight Environmental Consultants 2016 Note: 0.00 may represent zero or emissions less than 0.005. 1. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

As shown in Table 7-2, operations-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (See Attachment E), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant long term air quality impact.

Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes and daycare centers. The nearest proposed residential sensitive receptors are immediately north of the proposed Project site. There are 7 known non-residential sensitive receptors within 2 miles of the Project site and are listed below in Table 7-3.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 15 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 7-3 – Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 Miles from Project Receptor Type of Facility Distance from Direction Project in Miles from Project Douglas J. Miller Elementary School K-6 Public 1.12 SE Bill L. Williams Elementary School K-6 Public 1.3 NE Bakersfield Sports Village Soccer Complex Recreation 1.4 SE Heir Force Academy Preschool 1.4 NW Independence High School 9-12 Public 1.6 SW Sing Lum Elementary School K-6 Public 1.75 NW Ridgeview High School 9-12 Public 1.8 SE

Based on the criteria pollutant analysis above and the potential visibility, health, and odor impacts analyzed below, the proposed Project is expected to have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors.

Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increase are predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area within 100 kilometers of the Project (including Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 Area.

Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

I. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or II. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

According to the Project applicant a traffic impact study has not been prepared for this project. Impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 16 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Predicted Health Risk Impacts GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs. Because a residential project is not considered a source of HAPs, no screening level Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was required. Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Odor Impacts and Mitigation The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and 2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.” (SJVAPCD 2015).

GAMAQI also states “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors.” (SJVAPCD 2015). Because the Project is a residential development and not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source which would create objectionable odors the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI (SJVAPCD 2015), the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emission estimates indicate that the proposed Project would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

Impacts to the Ambient Air Quality An ambient air quality analysis was performed to determine if the proposed Project has the potential to impact ambient air quality through a violation of the ambient air quality standards or a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard. The basis for the analysis is dispersion modeling and the Project’s long-term air quality impacts shown in Table 7-2.

The maximum off-site ground level concentration of each pollutant for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, 24- hour and annual periods was predicted using the most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion software under the Lakes Environmental ISC-AERMOD View interface. SJVAPCD-approved, AERMET-processed U Star meteorological datasets for calendar years 2009 through 2013 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2016b). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling runs were conducted. All of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters were employed. Rural dispersion parameters were used for this project, which differs from the urban setting used in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod selection criteria is based on trip distances to the project site while the AERMOD selection criteria is based on the majority of the land use surrounding the facility. The majority of the land surrounding the project site is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Emissions were evaluated for each pollutant on a short-term (correlating to pollutant averaging period) and long-term (annual) basis, with the exception of CO that was evaluated only for short-term exposures since there are no long term significance thresholds for CO.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 17 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

The majority of mobile emissions predicted by CalEEMod will occur beyond the project boundary because of vehicle trips. In order to determine the on-site vehicle emissions the following methodology was discussed and approved by the SJVAPCD (Villalvazo personal communications). An estimated on- site trip distance was determined by calculating the diagonal distance from the center of the project to the furthest corner for each land use. The on-site estimated trip distance for the Project was determined to be 0.29 miles. The on-site estimated trip distance was then divided by the average trip length used in CalEEMod, 8.53 miles, in order to determine the on-site to off-site mobile emissions ratio, 3.4%. The total mobile emissions calculated by CalEEMod for the Project were then reduced by 96.6% to estimate the mobile on-site emissions used for ambient air quality modeling.

A fenceline coordinate grid of receptor points was constructed. The grid consisted of a 25-meter fenceline spacing and 25-meter tier spacing extending a distance of 100 meters then 50-meter spacing extending for 200 meters with initial receptors starting 25 meters from the facility boundary. Elevated terrain options were employed despite the lack of complex terrain in the Project area.

For each pollutant and averaging period modeled, a “total” concentration was estimated by adding the maximum measured background air concentration to the maximum predicted Project impacts. The maximum measured background air concentrations used in this analysis were calculated from measured concentrations at the nearest monitoring stations.

The results of the air dispersion modeling, presented in Table 7-5, demonstrate that the maximum impacts attributable to the Project, when considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, are below the applicable ambient air quality standard for NOx, SOx and CO. The AERMOD output files are provided in Attachment F.

Table 7-5 - Predicted Ambient Air Quality Impacts Project + Averaging Background Project NAAQS CAAQS Pollutant Background Period (g/m3) (g/m3) (g/m3) (g/m3) (g/m3) 1-hour 115.00 10.85 125.85 188.68 338 NO 2 Annual 8.15 0.87 9.02 100 56 1-hour 19.20 0.08 19.28 196 655 3-hour 18.100 0.05 18.15 1,300 --- SO 2 24-hour 10.500 0.02 10.52 365 105 Annual 0.953 0.01 0.96 ------1-hour 3090.00 57.33 3147.33 40,000 23,000 CO 8-hour 1150.00 26.02 1176.02 10,000 10,000 24-hour 109.00 0.81 109.81 150 50 PM 10 Annual 59.10 0.26 59.36 --- 20 24-hour 83.00 0.43 83.43 35 --- PM 2.5 Annual 22.40 0.14 22.54 12 12

Pre-Project concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 exceed their respective ambient air quality standards. PM10 and PM2.5 are evaluated in accordance with the SJVAPCD recommended significant impact level (SIL) for fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. It is the SJVAPCD’s policy to use significant impact levels to determine whether a proposed new or modified source will cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS violation. If a project’s maximum impacts are below the District SIL, the project is judged to not cause or contribute significantly to an AAQS or PSD increment violation. A comparison of the proposed impact from the Project to the District SIL values is provided in Table 7-6.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 18 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 7-6: Comparison of Maximum Modeled Project Impact with Significance Thresholds Pollutant Averaging Period Predicted Concentration SIL (g/m3) (g/m3) 24-hour 0.81 10.4 PM10 Annual 0.26 2.08 24-hour 0.43 2.5 PM 2.5 Annual 0.14 0.63

Because the Project’s modelled PM10 and PM2.5 are below the SJVAPCD’s significance levels for 24-hour and annual concentrations, the Project’s contribution to potential violations of ambient air quality standards would be less-than-significant.

8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Air pollution emissions naturally contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The SJVAPCD’s nonattainment status is a result of past and present development activity within the SJVAB. Furthermore, future development further challenges the SJVAPCD to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the SJVAB. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. A Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3). (SJVAPCD 2015)

GAMAQI also states “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (SJVAPCD 2015). Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:

 Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.  Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions.  Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and  Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors from within the SJVAPCD recommended screening radius of one mile.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 19 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2012 annual inventory.2 This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards. Table 8-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory.

Table 8-1 – Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2012 Inventory Emissions Inventory Source Pollutant (tons/year) ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Kern County - 20121 51,137 39,566 122,640 2,154 25,842 10,768 SJVAB - 20121 218,964 119,282 490,998 4,526 117,567 40,150 Proposed Project 4.04 2.29 17.07 0.04 2.77 0.88 Proposed Project’s % of Kern 0.008 0.006 0.014 0.002 0.01 0.008 Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.002 Source: CARB 2013 Note: This is the latest inventory available as of February 2016

As shown in Table 8-1 the proposed Project does not pose a significant increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved. Tables 8-2 through 8- 4 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2020 for both the SJVAB and the Kern County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2020 emissions inventory, the Kern County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kern County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 8-2 – Emission Inventory SJVAB 2020 Projection – Tons per Year ROG NOX PM10 Total Emissions 211,664 119,063 125,889 Percent Stationary Sources 15.00 22.93 8.09 Percent Area-Wide Sources 29.44 5.24 77.07 Percent Mobile Sources 15.00 68.58 4.67 Percent Natural Sources 40.56 3.25 10.21 Total Stationary Source Emissions 31,755 27,302 10,184 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 62,306 6,242 97,017 Total Mobile Source Emissions 31,755 81,651 5,877 Total Natural Source Emissions 85,848 3,869 12,848 Source: CARB 2009 Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

2 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile and Natural Sources

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 20 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 8-3 - Emission Inventory SJVAB – Kern County Portion 2020 Estimate Projection – Tons per Year ROG NOX PM10 Total Emissions 47,377 49,494 32,485 Percent Stationary Sources 29.43 17.77 8.76 Percent Area-Wide Sources 15.87 1.40 44.83 Percent Mobile Sources 11.17 42.26 3.71 Percent Natural Sources 14.64 0.42 1.91 Total Stationary Source Emissions 13,943 8,797 2,847 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 7,519 694 14,564 Total Mobile Source Emissions 5,293 20,915 1,205 Total Natural Source Emissions 6,935 219 621 Source: CARB 2009 Note: Total may not add due to rounding.

Table 8-4 - 2020 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Kern County, and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ROG NOX PM10 Proposed Project 4.03 2.29 2.75 Kern County 47,377 49,494 32,485 SJVAB 211,664 119,063 125,889 Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.009 0.002 0.008 Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.002 0.002 0.002 Kern County Percent of SJVAB 22.38 41.57 25.80 Source: CARB 2009 Note: The emission estimates for Kern County and the SJVAB are based on 2020 projections. The Proposed Project emission estimates are for the proposed emissions that are not already included in the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. Project emissions are based on years 2017-2023 Residential estimates to present the most conservative comparison. The Project’s emissions are expected to decline as cleaner, less polluting vehicles replace vehicles with higher emissions.

As shown above, the proposed Project would pose no impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Because the regional contribution to these cumulative impacts would be negligible, the Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the CARB is based on data gathered for the 2012 annual inventory (CARB 2013. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 8-hour O3 Standards and contained 218,964 tons/year VOC (ROG) and 119,282 tons/year NOx from all sources (SJVAPCD 2007). On a regional basis, the proposed Project represents approximately 0.002% of the ROG and 0.002% of the NOx emissions of the 2012 inventory of the SJVAB. The projected emissions posed by the Project upon the air basin would be less than significant because basin emissions would be essentially the same whether or not the Project is built.

Cumulative Localized Air Quality Impacts A review of the cumulative project lists provided by the City of Bakersfield and KCPD indicates that there are twenty four (24) other planned developments found within a one-mile radius of the Project. The Project is located within the City of Bakersfield. The listings provided below in Tables 8-5 and 8- 6 is only a geographical reference to demonstrate the construction activity in the Project vicinity. The number or size of these projects is of no particular significance since no “cumulative” emissions thresholds have been established by the SJVAPCD or the BPD. Emissions were not estimated for the

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 21 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

two tentative parcel maps zoned for agricultural land, as CalEEMod does not provide estimated emissions for this, or a similar, land usage.

Table 8-5 – Cumulative Construction Projects Pollutant (tons/year)(1) One-Mile Radius Projects ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 City of Bakersfield Tentative Tracts TTM 6531 - 298 lots 7.86 25.08 25.53 0.05 2.9 1.77 TTM 6615 - 159 lots 4.74 18.81 16.81 0.03 1.7 1.21 TTM 6616 2R - 347 lots 10.71 41.33 49.68 0.1 5.81 3.22 TTM 6663 - 309 lots 9.99 41.01 48.55 0.09 5.59 3.15 TTM 6873 - 352 lots 10.81 41.4 49.9 0.1 5.85 3.23 TTM 6874 - 333 Lots 10.45 41.24 49.34 0.09 5.73 3.2 TTM 6875 - 238 Lots 6.76 24.73 24.45 0.04 2.72 1.72 TTM 6880 - 222 lots 5.87 19.11 17.67 0.03 1.83 1.25 TTM 7136 - 137 lots 3.81 13.61 11.44 0.02 1.2 0.88 TTM 7140 - 117 Lots 3.45 13.54 11.26 0.02 1.17 0.87 TTM 7165 - 142 lots 3.89 13.61 11.46 0.02 1.21 0.89 TTM 7213 - 158 Lots 4.72 18.81 16.81 0.03 1.7 1.21 TTM 7261 - 221 lots 5.85 19.11 17.67 0.03 1.83 1.25 TTM 7263 - 155 lots 4.67 18.81 16.79 0.03 1.69 1.21 TTM 7267 -113 lots 3.38 13.51 11.2 0.02 1.17 0.87 Tentative Parcel Maps TPM 11783 / 19.43 acres / Zones A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TPM 11809 / 31.43 acres M1 Light 11.47 14.13 19.21 0.04 2.32 1.07 Industrial TPM 11874 / 57.3 acres / Zoned A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TPM 11879 / 22.82 acres - PCD 8.13 9.49 11.07 0.02 1.23 0.65 Planning Commercial Development TPM 11865 / 80.62 acres M1 Light 33.12 51.85 103.59 0.26 14.85 5.34 Industrial TPM 12169 / 9.93 ac M-2 zoning 3.6 5.04 4.97 0.01 0.57 0.36 TPM 12173 / 11.05 C-2 zoning 4.17 6.84 6.59 0.01 0.73 0.46

SPR - 15-0165 - 687 sf convenience 0.08 0.73 0.48 0.01 0.05 0.05 market GPA/ZC 15-0252 9.62 ac C-2 zoning 3.52 5.01 4.74 0.01 0.52 0.35 (GC land use)

Total Cumulative One-Mile 161.05 456.8 529.21 1.06 62.37 34.21 Projects

This Project (Construction) 6.86 18.69 15.99 0.02 1.64 1.26 Total Cumulative Projects 167.91 475.49 545.20 1.08 64.01 35.47 1. These emissions are overestimated and include all years of construction not just a single year, as they are discretionary projects that are subject to various mitigation measures that have not yet been determined nor their impacts reduced herein.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 22 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 8-6 – Cumulative Operations Projects Pollutant (tons/year)(1) One-Mile Radius Projects ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 City of Bakersfield Tentative Tracts TTM 6531 - 298 lots 6.61 7.3 45.06 0.13 6.33 3.98 TTM 6615 - 159 lots 3.61 4.39 24.9 0.07 3.38 2.12 TTM 6616 2R - 347 lots 7.33 7.59 48.33 0.15 7.36 4.63 TTM 6663 - 309 lots 6.53 6.76 43.04 0.13 6.56 4.12 TTM 6873 - 352 lots 7.15 7.65 46.44 0.14 7.05 4.27 TTM 6874 - 333 Lots 7.16 7.3 47.52 0.15 7.25 4.63 TTM 6875 - 238 Lots 5.66 5.3 38.86 0.12 5.98 4.1 TTM 6880 - 222 lots 4.79 4.87 31.88 0.1 4.87 3.12 TTM 7136 - 137 lots 3.46 3.08 24.19 0.08 3.74 2.66 TTM 7140 - 117 Lots 4.03 2.79 30.42 0.1 4.79 3.86 TTM 7165 - 142 lots 2.83 3.08 18.28 0.06 2.77 1.65 TTM 7213 - 158 Lots 3.23 3.43 21.04 0.06 3.2 1.95 TTM 7261 - 221 lots 4.25 4.77 27 0.08 4.08 2.33 TTM 7263 - 155 lots 3.71 3.45 25.55 0.08 3.94 2.71 TTM 7267 -113 lots 2.66 1.51 18.26 0.06 2.81 1.92 Tentative Parcel Maps

TPM 11783 / 19.43 acres / N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Zones A TPM 11809 / 31.43 acres M1 10.49 15.92 54.95 0.18 8.62 2.63 Light Industrial TPM 11874 / 57.3 acres / Zoned N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A TPM 11879 / 22.82 acres - PCD Planning Commercial 9 15.6 58.52 0.17 8.11 2.46 Development TPM 11865 / 80.62 acres M1 26.91 40.85 140.96 0.45 22.12 6.75 Light Industrial TPM 12169 / 9.93 ac M-2 zoning 2.37 1.68 5.12 0.02 0.79 0.25 TPM 12173 / 11.05 C-2 zoning 4.37 7.57 28.38 0.08 3.93 1.19

SPR - 15-0165 - 687 sf 0.21 0.49 2.8 0.01 0.16 0.05 convenience market GPA/ZC 15-0252 9.62 ac C-2 3.79 6.58 24.67 0.07 3.42 1.04 zoning (GC land use)

Total Cumulative One-Mile 130.15 161.96 806.17 2.49 121.26 62.42 Projects

This Project (Operational) 4.04 2.29 17.07 0.04 2.77 0.88 Total Cumulative Projects 134.19 164.25 823.24 2.53 124.03 63.3 1. These emissions are overestimated and include all years of construction not just a single year, as they are discretionary projects that are subject to various mitigation measures that have not yet been determined nor their impacts reduced herein.

As details regarding the potential emissions from the various projects listed above were not readily available through the BPD, the emissions estimates presented were modeled using the CalEEMod

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 23 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

computer model to predict cumulative impacts (see Attachment E for output results) unless otherwise noted. Emissions for the construction and operational phases of each project were based on total number of lots or square footage for maximum project build-out as noted on the most current BPD Tentative Tract Map, Kern County GIS Geocortex Online Mapping information, and City of Bakersfield Cumulative Projects Map. No mitigation measures were applied to any of the projects as it is not known which, if any, would be required by the City of Bakersfield or which may be voluntarily proposed by each developer or required by code or regulation. Additionally, no cumulative significance thresholds are shown since no cumulative thresholds have been established by the SJVAPCD, CARB or other regulatory authority. These projects represent all known and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. As these projects are either currently under construction or, at a minimum, approved by the BPD for consistency with applicable regulation, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that they are in conformance with the regional AQAP and/or the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Since projects included in the cumulative analysis presumably comply with the requirements of one or both of these plans, the Project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is considered less than significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) (SJVAPCD 2015).

Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant sources of HAPS, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) - Mobile Sources The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard also known as a “Hotspot”. There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

 A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or  A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

9.0 IMPACTS TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 24 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

[CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California”. The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non- compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses.

AB32 charges CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California, and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31% from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29% from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design”. In the Court’s final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals, 2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less that significant, and 3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans, or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 25 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

As discussed in Section 6.0 Significance Criteria, the SJVAPCD has developed a specific numerical threshold to determine significance of a proposed project. According to the Court’s ruling this numerical threshold can be used to demonstrate compliance. This threshold is applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the BAU methodology.

Global Climate Change Impacts from the Proposed Project The Earth’s atmosphere naturally includes a number of gases, including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxides (N2O) that are referred to as GHGs. These gases trap some amount of solar radiation and the Earth’s own radiation, preventing it from passing through Earth’s atmosphere and into space. GHGs are vital to life on Earth; without them Earth would be an icy planet. CO2 is also a trace element that is essential to the cycle of life. It is essential to plant growth and studies have shown that vegetation growth has increased in North America commensurate with the increase in CO2 over the past decades. However, increasing GHG concentrations tend to warm the planet. A warming trend of about 0.7°F to 1.5°F reportedly occurred during the 20th century, and a number of scientific analyses indicate that rising levels of GHGs in the atmosphere may be contributing to climate change.

As the average temperature of the Earth increases, weather may be affected, including changes in precipitation patterns, accumulation of snow pack, and intensity and duration of spring snowmelt. There may be rises in sea level, resulting in coastal erosion and inundation of coastal areas. Emissions of air pollutants and ambient levels of pollutants also may be affected in areas. Climate zones may change, affecting the ecology and biological resources of a region. There may be changes in fire hazards due to the changes in precipitation and climate zones.

While scientists have established a connection between increasing CO2 concentrations and increasing average temperatures, important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system. At this point, scientific efforts are unable to quantify the degree to which human activity impacts climate change. The phenomenon is worldwide, yet it is expected that there will be substantial regional and local variability in climate changes. It is not possible with today’s science to determine the effect of global climate change in a specific locale, or whether the effect of one aspect of climate change may be counteracted by another aspect of climate change, or exacerbated by it.

Human activities generate GHGs. Since pre-industrial times, there has been a build-up of levels of gases like CO2 in the atmosphere. The human contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations largely has resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately 98% of CO2 emissions from human activity.

The United States has the second highest emissions of GHGs of any nation on Earth, though CO2 emissions in California are less than the national average, both in per capita emissions and in emissions per gross state product. Transportation is the largest source of CO2 emissions in California, accounting for approximately 41% of total emissions. Electricity generation accounts for approximately 22% of CO2 emissions in California, and the industrial sector accounts for approximately 20.5%.

There are a number of factors available for estimating the GHG emissions. Not all GHG exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in carbon dioxide equivalencies (CO2e). The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMOD program. These emissions are summarized in Table 9-1 and can be found in Attachment E. BAU emissions were calculated based on the Project activities using 2005 regulations and technologies built into CalEEMod, available as defaults. According to the SJVAPCD (SJVAPCD 2009), in order for the Project to conform with the goals of AB32 at least a 29% reduction from the 2002-2004 BAU period by 2020 must be demonstrated. Because 2002-2004 emission factors

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 26 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

are not available in CalEEMod, year 2005 was used for BAU. Using 2005 as BAU results in more conservative emission reduction calculations as the emission factors in 2005 are lower (more efficient), thereby producing a smaller reduction between mitigated and BAU. Mitigated Project emissions were calculated using updated emission factors from CalEEMod for anticipated years of operation. The 2005 BAU and Mitigated Project emissions are summarized in Table 9-2 and can be found in Attachment E.

Table 9-1 – Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (Tons/Year) Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Construction Emissions Phase 1 280.70 0.07 0.00 282.17 Phase 2 278.53 0.07 0.00 280.00 Phase 3 275.77 0.07 0.00 277.22 Phase 4 273.07 0.07 0.00 274.51 Phase 5 268.21 0.07 0.00 269.64 Phase 6 268.12 0.07 0.00 269.53 Phase 7 268.03 0.07 0.00 269.44 Phase 8 268.03 0.07 0.00 269.44 Operational Emissions Area Emissions 127.78 0.00 0.00 128.61 Energy Emissions 1,119.82 0.04 0.01 1,125.20 Mobile Emissions 2,641.07 0.09 0.00 2,643.06 Waste Emissions 68.33 4.04 0.00 153.13 Water Emissions 47.37 0.61 0.00 64.78 Total Project Operational Emissions 4,004.37 4.79 0.03 4,114.77 Annualized Construction Emissions1 72.682 0.02 0 73.07 Project Emissions 4,077.05 4.81 0.03 4,187.84 *Note: 0.00 could represent <0.00 1 Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology: Construction emissions are annualized over a 30 year period.

Table 9-2 – Comparison of BAU and Project Mitigated Emissions (Tons/Year) 2005 BAU Project Mitigated1 CO2e Emissions 5,832.38 4114.77 Percent Reduction 29.45 1 Project mitigated includes only operational emissions

The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any regulations developed under AB32 as determined by CARB. As demonstrated in Table 9-2 the required 29% reduction to comply with SJVAPCD GHG significance thresholds will be reached in full. Since the Project complies with the SJVAPCD significance reduction threshold of 29%, (through fleet mix emission reductions, advances in cleaner vehicle, and advances in energy and water efficiency) the Project would be considered less than significant.

Feasible and Reasonable Mitigation Relative to Global Warming CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts from construction and operations on air quality. The SJVAPCD’s “Non-Residential On-Site Mitigation Checklist” was applied in preparing the mitigation measures and evaluating the Project’s features. These measures include using controls that limit the exhaust from construction equipment and using alternatives to diesel when possible. Additional reductions would be achieved through the air districts and CARB implementing regulations to reduce diesel engine emissions.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 27 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

While it is not possible to determine whether the Project individually would have a significant impact on global warming or climate change, the Project would potentially contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California as well as related health effects. The Project emissions would only be a very small fraction of the statewide GHG emissions. However, without the necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to assess, with certainty, whether the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. CEQA, however, does note that the more severe environmental problems the lower the thresholds for treating a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. Given the position of the legislature in AB32 which states that global warming poses serious detrimental effects, and the requirements of CEQA for the lead agency to determine that a project not have a cumulatively considerable contribution, the effect of the Project’s CO2 contribution may be considered cumulatively considerable. This determination is based on the lack of clear scientific evidence or other criteria for determining the significance of the Project’s contribution of GHG to the air quality in the SJVAB. The strategies currently being implemented by CARB may help in reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and are summarized in the table below.

Table 9-3 – Select CARB GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy Vehicle Climate Change AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt Standards regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by CARB in Sept. 2004. Diesel Anti-Idling In July 2004, CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled retail motor vehicle idling. Other Light-Duty Vehicle New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 Technology model year. Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1% to 4% Blends Biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. Alternative Fuels: Ethanol Increased use of ethanol fuel. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an Reduction Measures educational program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector.

Not all of these measures are currently appropriate or applicable to the proposed Project. While future legislation could further reduce the Project’s GHG footprint, the analysis of this is speculative and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, will not be further evaluated in this AQIA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 notes that sometimes the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis. Global climate change is this type of issue. The causes and effects may not be just regional or statewide, they may also be worldwide. Given the uncertainties in identifying, let alone quantifying the impact of any single project on global warming and climate change, and the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the Project through design, in accordance with CEQA Section 15130, any further feasible emissions reductions would be accomplished through CARB regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. The cumulative impacts of the Project to global climate change as demonstrated in Table 9-2 will achieve the required 29% reduction needed to comply with SJVAPCD GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 28 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

10.0 CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN

Air quality impacts from proposed projects within the City of Bakersfield are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (SJVAPCD 2015; City of Bakersfield 2007). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either of the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires the local air districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The SJVAPCD’s San Joaquin Valley AQAP complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the SJVAPCD permitting authority under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within a project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

Required Evaluation Guidelines CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between a proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site. To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the Project is being proposed. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified, AQAP as approved by the CARB. The current AQAP is under review by the U.S. EPA. 2. The proposed Project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included within the employment increases projected in the Metropolitan Bakersfield and Kern County General Plans (Table 10-1). 3. The Project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed Project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 29 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

As the growth represented by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Bakersfield and Kern County General Plans and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

1. The findings of the analysis conducted using Traffic Analysis Zones show that sufficient housing and population increases are planned for the project area (Tables 10-1 and 10-2 below); 2. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds; and 3. That the primary source of emissions from the Project would be motor vehicles which would be licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP.

Consistency with the Kern Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis Determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2030 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3 and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies).

The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kern County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast.

Item 2 under Section 3 – Model Maintenance Procedure, of the Kern COG Regional Transportation Modeling Policy and Procedure Manual states “Land Use Data – General Plan land capacity data or “Build -out capacity” is used to distribute the forecasted County totals, and may be updated as new information becomes available, and is revised in regular consultation with local planning departments.”

Under the current City of Bakersfield Zoning, the Project site is designated as “R-1” for single-family dwelling and would be included in the regional growth forecast (see Figure 10-1).

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 30 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Proposed Project Location

LEGEND:

Figure 10-1 – City of Bakersfield Zoning

In addition, a review of Kern COG regional forecast was prepared to evaluate if the Project area growth forecast would be sufficient to account for the Project’s projected employment increase. The adopted growth forecasts are assigned to Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) (see Figure 10-2); a review of the growth forecast one mile from a project presents a conservative assessment of the Project area. The TAZ’s included in the one mile radius from the proposed Project site are: 47, 53, 76, 77, 401, 1043, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1170, 1171 and 1393.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 31 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Figure 10-2 – TAZ 1-Mile Analysis Area

Tables 10-1 and 10-2 present the summary of the TAZ growth forecast data for the Project’s one mile radius. 412 additional jobs are forecast between 2015 through 2020; 681 additional jobs are forecast between 2017 and 2030 (Table 10-1). Kern Cog has predicted an increase in growth in population (+30%), an increase in growth in housing (+32%) and an increase in employment (+33%) between 2017 and 2020 (Table 10-2). There would be sufficient population and employment entitlements forecast for the TAZ analysis area to account for 100% of the Project’s population and employment increase at 2020 and 2030. In order to be considered “consistent” and, therefore, in conformance with the AQAP, these increases would need to occur over the same time as the adopted growth forecast.

Table 10-1 – TAZ Analysis Area Projected Growth Analysis3 Years: 2017 2020 2030 Population 10,720 11,197 14,336 Households 3,252 3,435 4,436 Employment 1,268 1,419 1,949

3 Kern Council of Governments Regional Conformity Analysis Data, 2008

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 32 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Table 10-2 – Percent Increase/Decrease on TAZ Analysis Area Years Percent Increase / Decrease Population Households Employment 2017* 0 0 0 2020 30 32 33 2030 28 36 53 *Baseline year of 2017 was valued at “0” to measure net percent increase/decrease.

The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation and is currently located within an existing TAZ. There is sufficient employment growth forecast to account for population and employment growth by 2020 as demonstrated in Table 10-2 by the higher percent increases in employment that population. The Project would be considered consistent with the adopted growth forecast and, therefore, in conformance with the SJVAB’s AQAP.

11.0 MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES

As the estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, no specific mitigation measures would be required. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant would be required to implement and comply with a number of measures by regulation and would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long- term design. The following measures have been applied to the Project as SJVAPCD rules and regulations and conditions of approval and through the CalEEMod model analysis:

SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VII measures are as follows:

 Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.  Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.  Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour.  Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles.  Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.  Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking.  When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions.  Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden).  Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 33 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

 Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday.  Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:  Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals.  Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods.  Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight (8) cumulative hours per day.  Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.  Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.  All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions.  On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.  On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.  All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.  All construction activities within the Project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts.  Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average).

Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:

 The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.  Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD.  The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient.  The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the Project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of: o Rapid cure cutback asphalt; o Medium cure cutback asphalt; o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 34 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Measures Applied in CalEEMod to the Proposed Project  Improve Destination Accessibility, Distance to Downtown/Job Center5; o The Project would be located in an area with high accessibility. According to the SJVAPCD, a project is considered to improve destination accessibility if it is located within 12 miles of downtown or a job center. The Proposed Project is located approximately 2.52 miles from the nearest job center. Destination accessibility is measures in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of a project also increases the potential for pedestrian to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT (CAPCOA 2010). This mitigation is achieved through site selection.  Improve Pedestrian Network (Project site and connecting off-site) 5; o Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive, resulting in a reduction in VMT. The Project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the Project site (CAPCOA 2010).  Only Natural Gas Hearth (Residential Only) 5; o The Proposed Project would reduce emissions by including only natural gas fired hearths, which burn cleaner and emit less air pollutants than conventional hearths.  3% Electric Lawnmower5; o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure. This measure is likely conservative as it does not include local incentives through the air district such as the lawn mower exchange program, electric mower rebates etc.  3% Electric Leaf blower5; o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure.  3% Electric Chainsaw5; o When electric landscape equipment is used in place of a conventional gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment (CAPCOA 2010). The SJVAPCD accepts the statewide average of 3 percent electric landscape equipment as a standard mitigation measure.

12.0 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to facility construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent possible and were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be reduced to the extent feasible and were found to be less than significant.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 35 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

The proposed Project in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future Projects will result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible to be below thresholds of significance and would be not be considered cumulatively considerable because of presumed conformance with the AQAP and/or the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be considered less than significant.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 36 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

13.0 ATTACHMENTS

A. Ozone Concentration Data B. PM10 and PM2.5 Concentration Data C. SOx, NOx, and CO Concentration Data D. Lead Concentration Data E. Project Emissions Calculations  Changes to Default Fleet Mix  Proposed Project - CalEEMod v.2013.2.2 Output  Cumulative Projects – CalEEMod v.2013.2.2 Output (Electronic)  GHG BAU and Mitigated Emissions - CalEEMod v.2013.2.2 F. Ambient Air Quality Analysis  Summary Results  AERMOD Modeling Files (Electronic) G. California Air Resources Board 2012 Estimated Annual Average Emissions  San Joaquin Valley Air Basin  Kern County H. California Air Resources Board 2020 Forecasted Annual Average Emissions Estimated Annual Average Emissions  San Joaquin Valley Air Basin  Kern County

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 37 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

14.0 REFERENCES

Auer, Jr., A.H., 1978. Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 17(5): 636-643, 1978.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html

------. 2015. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” October 1, 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf

------. 2013 “Emission Inventory Data. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm Website accessed in February 2016 by Molly Saso of Insight Environmental Consultants.

------. 2009. Almanac Emission Projection Data http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php Website accessed in February 2016 by Molly Saso of Insight Environmental Consultants.

California, State of, Office of Administrative Law, California Code of Regulations. http://oal.ca.gov/ccr.htm. CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387). http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Site accessed February 2016 by Molly Saso of Insight Environmental Consultants, Inc.

------. 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2, released October 2013.

City of Bakersfield. 2007. “Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (Unincorporated Planning Area).” December 11, 2007. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/mbgptoc.pdf

------. 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17, 2009.

------. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm

------. 2016a. Real-Time Air Monitoring Stations. http://www.valleyair.org/programs/raan/raan_monitoring_system.htm

------. 2016b. AERMET v15181 UStar. January 5, 2016. ftp://12.219.204.27/public/Modeling/Meteorological_Data/AERMET_v15181_UStar/

------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. “The National Map.” Last modified May 17, 2012. https://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/(xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd&layout=6_1_61_ 48&uiarea=2&ctype=catalogEntry&carea=%24ROOT)/.do

Villalvazo, Leland. 2015. Supervising Air Quality Specialist, Modeling and Inventory. SJVAPCD. Emails and telephone conversations with Kathy Parker at Insight Environmental Consultants about modeling methods in SJVAPCD from January 2013 through May 2015.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 38 Tract 7262 Single-Family Residential Project Air Quality Impact Assessment

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Bakersfield, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 10/1/1937 to 1/20/2015. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0442, Website access February 11, 2016 by Molly Saso of Insight Environmental Consultants.

Insight Environmental Consultants Page 39

A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR ANTON HOME PLACE, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to: Pacific Engineering 2280 Ming Avenue Bakersfield, California 93304

Keywords: Gosford 7.5' Quadrangle, City of Bakersfield, California Environmental Quality Act

Submitted by: Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309

Author: Scott M. Hudlow

May 2005, Revised September 2007 Management Summary

At the request of Pacific Engineering, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at approximately 320 acres for a proposed residential development, on the south side of Panama Lane between Ashe Lane and Gosford Road in the City of Bakersfield, California. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search.

One cultural resource was identified, house P-1; Antongiovanni House. It is a dilapidated early twentieth-century farmhouse with a large complex. The house is abandoned, empty, and no longer maintained. Additionally, the house has been significantly altered though additions and does not embody embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Further, it is does not represent the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. Additionally, the house has not yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history, and is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; are associated with the lives or persons important to our past. As such, house P-1, Antongiovanni House, is ineligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources under Criteria A, B, C, or D, per California Public Resources Code 15064.5(a)3(A-D).

A second cultural resource, the Stine Canal , CA-KER-7332, crosses the project area. The Stine Canal is a nineteenth-century agricultural canal. The Stine Canal section under consideration is disconnected from the northern portion of the canal and is not in use, as such, the Stine Canal is ineligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources under Criteria A, B, C, or D, per California Public Resources Code 15064.5(a)3(A-D).

No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.

If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99.

2 Table of Contents

Management Summary ...... 2

Table of Contents ...... 3

List of Figures ...... 3

1.0 Introduction ...... 5

2.0 Survey Location ...... 5

3.0 Record Search ...... 5

4.0 Environmental Background ...... 5

5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context ...... 7

6.0 Ethnographic Background ...... 8

7.0 Historical Overview ...... 9

8.0 Field Procedures and Methods...... 12

9.0 Report of Findings...... 13

10.0 Management Recommendations ...... 20

11.0 References ...... 21

Appendix I ...... 23

Appendix II ...... 25

List of Figures

1 Project Area Location Map ...... 6

2 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, North and East Elevations ...... 13

3 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, Pump House, South Elevation ...... 14

4 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, House, North and West Elevations ...... 15

5 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, Garage and Office, South and West Elevations ...... 16

6 House P-1, Antongiovanni House Location, View toward the South ...... 17

7 Stine Canal, View toward the Northeast...... 18

8 Stine Canal, View toward the Southwest ...... 19

9 Stine Canal, View toward the Southwest across Gosford Road ...... 20

4 1.0 Introduction

At the request of Pacific Engineering, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates conducted a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey at an approximate 320-acre site for a proposed residential development, on the south side of Panama Lane, bound by Ashe Lane and Gosford Road in the City of Bakersfield, California in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Phase I Cultural Resource Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the site and a cultural resource record search.

2.0 Survey Location

The survey area is in the City of Bakersfield. It consists of the N 1/2 of Section 28, T.30S., R.27E., Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian, as displayed on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gosford 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). This parcel lies on the south side of Panama Lane between Ashe Lane and Gosford Road in the City of Bakersfield, California.

3.0 Record Search

A record search of the survey area and the environs within 1 mile was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center. Archaeological Information Center staff conducted the record search on May 6, 2005, AIC# 05-243 (Appendix II). The record search revealed that sixteen cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the project area; however, no surveys have addressed the current project area. Six cultural resources have been recorded within one mile of the survey area, including the Stine Canal, which intersects the extreme northwest corner of the parcel.

4.0 Environmental Background

The project area is located at elevations between 350 and 355 feet above mean sea level in the Great Central Valley, which is composed of two valleys-- the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The project area is located in the southeastern portion of the southern San Joaquin Valley. The project area is a series of agricultural fields. No native vegetation survives; the parcel contains alfalfa, corn, and melons. Each crop was planted, surface visibility depends on the crop. The corn was approximately at twenty-five percent of its height, and the alfalfa was between mowing cycles. The melons were at the beginning of the growing season.

Figure 1 Project Area Location Map

6 5.0 Prehistoric Archaeological Context

Limited archaeological research has been conducted in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Thus, consensus on a generally agreed upon regional cultural chronology has yet to be developed. Most cultural sequences can be summarized into several distinct time periods: Early, Middle, and Late. Sequences differ in their inclusion of various "horizons," "technologies," or "stages." A prehistoric archaeological summary of the southern San Joaquin Valley is available in Moratto (Moratto 1984).

Despite the preoccupation with chronological issues in most of the previous research, most suggested chronological sequences are borrowed from other regions with minor modifications based on sparse local data.

The following chronology is based on Parr and Osborne's Paleo-Indian, Proto-Archaic, Archaic, Post-Archaic periods (Parr and Osborne 1992:44-47). Most existing chronologies focus on stylistic changes of time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points and beads rather than addressing the socioeconomic factors, which produced the myriad variations. In doing so, these attempts have encountered similar difficulties. These cultural changes are implied as environmentally determined, rather than economically driven.

Paleo-Indians, whom roamed the region approximately 12,000 years ago, were highly mobile individuals. Their subsistence is assumed to have been primarily big game, which was more plentiful 12,000 years ago than in the late twentieth century. However, in the Great Basin and California, Paleo people were also foragers who exploited a wide range of resources. Berries, seeds, and small game were also consumed. Their technology was portable, including manos (Parr and Osborne 1992:44). The paleo period is characterized by fluted Clovis and Folsom points, which have been identified throughout North America. The Tulare Lake region in Kings County has yielded several Paleo-Indian sites, which have included fluted points, scrapers, chipped crescents, and Lake Mojave-type points (Moratto 1984:81-2).

The Proto-Archaic period, which dates from approximately 11,000 to 8,000 years ago, was characterized by a reduction in mobility and conversely an increase in sedentism. This period is classified as the Western Pluvial Lake Tradition or the Proto-Archaic, of which the San Dieguito complex is a major aspect (Moratto 1984: 90-99; Warren 1967). An archaeological site along Buena Vista Lake in southwestern Kern County displays a similar assemblage to the San Dieguito type site. Claude Warren proposes that a majority of Proto-Archaic southern California could be culturally classified as the San Dieguito Complex (Warren 1967). The Buena Vista Lake site yielded manos, millingstones, large stemmed and foliate points, a mortar, and red ochre. During this period, subsistence patterns began to change. Hunting focused on smaller game and plant collecting became more integral. Large stemmed, lancelote (foliate)

7 projectile points represent lithic technology. Millingstones become more prevalent. The increased sedentism possibly began to create regional stylistic and cultural differences not evident in the paleo period.

The Archaic period persisted in California for the next 4000 years. In 1959, Warren and McKusiak proposed a three-phase chronological sequence based on a small sample of burial data for the Archaic period (Moratto 1984:189; Parr and Osborne 1992:47). It is distinguished by increased sedentism and extensive seed and plant exploitation. Millingstones, shaped through use, were abundant. Bedrock manos and metates were the most prevalent types of millingstones (Parr and Osborne 1992:45). The central valley began to develop distinct cultural variations, which can be distinguished by different regions throughout the valley, including Kern County.

In the Post-Archaic period enormous cultural variations began manifesting themselves throughout the entire San Joaquin Valley. This period extends into the contact period in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sedentary village life was emblematic of the Post-Archaic period, although hunting and gathering continued as the primary subsistence strategy. Agriculture was absent in California, partially due to the dense, predictable, and easily exploitable natural resources. The ancestral Yokuts have possibly been in the valley for the last three thousand years, and by the eighteenth century were the largest pre-contact population, approximately 40,000 individuals, in California (Moratto 1984).

6.0 Ethnographic Background

The Yokuts are a Penutian-speaking, non-political cultural group. Penutian speakers inhabit the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and the Central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Yokuts are split into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.

The southern San Joaquin Valley in the Bakersfield and associated Kern County area was home to the Yokuts tribelet, Yawelmani. The tribelets averaged 350 people in size, had a special name for themselves, and spoke a unique dialect of Yokuts. Land was owned collectively and every group member enjoyed the right to utilize food resources. The Yawelmani inhabited a strip of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, north of the Kern River to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and from the mountains on the east, to approximately the old south fork of the Kern River on the west (Wallace 1978:449; Parr and Osborne 1992:19). The Yawelmani were the widest ranging of the Yokuts tribelets. A half dozen villages were located along the Kern River, including Woilo ("planting place" or "sowing place"), which was located in downtown Bakersfield, where the original Amtrak station is located. A second village was located across the Kern River from Woilo, on the west

8 bank. Kroeber notes “while below the city, on one of the channels of the river draining toward Kern Lake was Kuyo.” (Kroeber 1925: 482)

The Southern Valley Yokuts established a mixed domestic economy emphasizing fishing, hunting, fowling, and collecting shellfish, roots, and seeds. Fish were the most prevalent natural resource; fishing was a productive activity throughout the entire year. Fish were caught in many different manners, including nets, conical basket traps, catching with bare hands, shooting with bows and arrows, and stunning fish with mild floral toxins. Geese, ducks, mud hens and other waterfowl were caught in snares, long-handled nets, stuffed decoys, and brushing brush to trick the birds to fly low into waiting hunters. Mussels were gathered and steamed on beds of tule. Turtles and dogs were consumed. The dogs might have been raised for consumption (Wallace 1978:449-450).

Wild seeds and roots provided a large portion of the Yokuts’ diet. Tule seeds, grass seeds, fiddleneck, alfilaria were also consumed. Acorns, the staple crop for many California native cultures, were not common in the San Joaquin Valley. Acorns were traded into the area, particularly from the foothills. Land mammals, such as rabbits, ground squirrels, antelope and tule elk, were not hunted often (Wallace 1978:450).

The Yokuts occupied permanent structures in permanent villages for most of the year. During the late and early summer, families left for several months to gather seeds and plant foods, shifting camp locations when changing crops. Several different types of fiber-covered structures were common in Yokuts settlements. The largest was a communal tule mat-covered, wedge-shaped structure, which could house upward of ten individuals. These structures were established in a row, with the village chief’s house in the middle and his messenger’s houses were located at the ends of the house row. Dance houses and assembly buildings were located outside the village living area (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301).

The Yokuts also built smaller, oval, single-family tule dwellings. These houses were covered with tall mohya stalks or with sewn tule mats. Bent-pole ribs frame these small houses. The Yokuts also built a cone-shaped dwelling, which was framed with poles tied together with a hoop and then covered with tule or grass. These cone-shaped dwellings were large enough to contain multiple fireplaces (Nabokov and Easton 1989:301). Other structures included mat-covered granaries for storing food supplies, and a dirt-covered, communally- owned sweathouse.

Clothing was minimal, men wore a breechclout or were naked. Women wore a narrow fringed apron. Rabbitskin or mud hen blankets were worn during the cold season. Moccasins were worn in certain places; however, most people went barefoot. Men wore no head coverings, but women wore basketry caps

9 when they carried burden baskets on their heads. Hair was worn long. Women wore tattoos from the corners of the mouth to the chin; both men and women had ear and nose piercings. Bone, wood or shell ornaments were inserted into the ears and noses (Wallace 1978:450-451).

Tule dominated the Yokut’s material culture. It was used for many purposes, including sleeping mats, wall coverings, cradles, and basketry. Ceramics are uncommon to Yokuts culture as is true throughout most California native cultures. Basketry was common to Yokuts culture. Yokuts made cooking containers, conical burden baskets, flat winnowing trays, seed beaters, and necked water bottles. Yokuts also manufactured wooden digging sticks, fire drills, mush stirrers, and sinew-backed bows. Knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were chipped from imported lithic materials including obsidian, chert, and chalcedony. Stone mortars and pestles were secured in trade. Cordage was manufactured from milkweed fibers, animal skins were tanned, and awls were made from bone. Marine shells, particularly olivella shells, were used in the manufacture of money and articles of personal adornment. Shells were acquired from the Chumash along the coast (Wallace 1978:451-453).

The basic social and economic unit was the nuclear family. Lineages were organized along patrilineal lines. Fathers transmitted totems, particular to each paternal lineage, to each of his children. The totem was a bird or animal that no lineage member would kill or eat; the totems were dreamed of and prayers were given to the totems. The mother’s totem was not passed to her offspring, but was treated with respect. Families sharing the same totem formed an exogamous lineage. The lineage had no formal leader nor did it own land. The lineage was a mechanism for transmitting offices and performing ceremonial functions. The lineages formed two moieties, East and West, which consisted of several different lineages. Moieties were customarily exogamous. Children followed the paternal moiety. Certain official positions within the villages were associated with certain totems. The most important was the Eagle lineage from which the village chief was appointed. A member of the Dove lineage acted as the chief’s assistant. He supervised food distribution and gave commands during ceremonies. Another hereditary position was common to the Magpie lineage, was that of spokesman or crier.

7.0 Historical Overview

The city of Bakersfield was settled in the 1860s, soon after California joined the United States after the passage of the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise of 1850 allowed for California to join the Union as a free state even though a major portion of the state lied beneath the Missouri Compromise line, and was potentially subject to southern settlement and slavery. Americans had long been visiting and working in California prior to the admission of California into the Union.

10 European exploration of the region begins in the 1770s with the Spanish. In 1772, Pedro Fages arrived in the San Joaquin Valley searching for army deserters. Father Francisco Garces, a Jesuit priest, soon visited the vicinity in 1776. The Spanish empire collapsed in 1820, and California became Mexican territory. American exploration of the San Joaquin Valley begins in the 1820s with Jedediah Smith, Kit Carson, and Joseph Walker looking for commercial opportunities. The United States government began exploring California in the 1830s. Soon, the Americans will be searching for intercontinental railroad routes to link the eastern and western halves of the continent.

The defeat of the Mexicans during the Mexican-American War and the subsequent discovery of gold will drastically alter the complicated political realities of the west. The Mexican-American War was ostensible fought to settle a boundary dispute wit h the Mexicans over the western boundary of the newly- annexed state of Texas, which had fought a successful rebellion against the Mexican Army in the mid 1830s. The Republic of Texas was an independent country for nine years until Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845. The outcome of the Mexican-American War was that Mexico rescinded its claims to much of the American southwest, in 1848, bringing these territories into the United States, including California.

In January 1849, the discovery of gold in Coloma, California changed the settlement of California, forever. In the summer of 1849, when the gold strike was publicly announced, the overnight settlement of California began. The Mexican population of California was small and limited to the coasts and a few of southern California’s interior valleys. A sizable native population settled the remainder of California; Bakersfield and Kern County was Yokuts territory. The Gold Rush tipped the balance of native communities throughout California, as many of California’s natives were decimated.

Many areas experienced smaller gold rushes, including the Kern River Valley, when gold was discovered in Keyesville in 1853. The gold was soon played and the true future of the region was soon identified, farming, as the gold prospectors came down from the mountains. Kern Island, a median point along the Kern Delta, between the mouth of the Kern River and the Kern Lake, was settled in 1860. Soon, Col. Thomas Baker bought the property from the original owner, Christian Bohna and the settlement of Bakersfield began in earnest.

Col. Baker was lured to California by the prospects of gold, but was tamed by the farming. He was a practicing lawyer and surveyor and was slowing moved west from Ohio. He was involved in Iowa’s territorial government and served in both the California senate and assembly before arriving in the area in the 1840s and 1850s. Col. Baker realized he had to drain the Kern Delta to manufacture usable farmland, and he also improved his land, creating one of the only transit locations between Los Angeles and Visalia in the 1860s.

11 Baker laid out the town and began the process of draining, diverting, and controlling the Kern River. In 1873, Bakersfield was incorporated and was the first city in the newly-created Kern County, which was previously a portion of Tulare County. In 1874, Bakersfield got a rail link with the establishment of the Southern Pacific line over the Tehachapi Pass. The train station was located in Sumner, a spite town that was established by the Southern Pacific about a mile east of downtown Bakersfield, now located in east Bakersfield. Bakersfield could now flourish as an agricultural community, producing fruits and grains.

The city of Bakersfield was expanding to the north in the early twentieth- century toward the Kern River, after its 1898 reincorporation. The city centered along Chester Avenue, which was the main north/south thoroughfare. The community of Sumter lied to the east, and the surrounding area tin all directions was farmland. The city of Bakersfield was a small community at the turn of the century, slightly less than 5,000 people lived in Bakersfield; an additional 17,000 people lived in Kern County (Maynard 1997:43). Bakersfield was a quiet city in the center of a farming region.

However, the discovery of the Kern River oil field in May 1899 quickly changed the face of the region. Bakersfield quickly became the center of a California oil boom, which made over the community. The population more than doubled in less than ten years, bringing prosperity to the area (Maynard 1997:43). Many people recognized that prosperity could not only be achieved through working in oil, but also through providing necessary services, such as milk products and lodging. The city of Bakersfield grew tremendously.

Between 1900 and 1950, Bakersfield and the greater Kern County region grew tremendously under the influence of two economic forces, agriculture and oil. By 1950, Bakersfield was a mid-sized city of approximately 50,000. It sported minor league baseball, had a regional airport, and was a major link along Route 99, which connected northern and southern California. In the late 1960s, Bakersfield was beginning to change again, as the Kern County Land Company was sold to Tenneco West, and Bakersfield began to suburbanize.

8.0 Field Procedures and Methods

Between May 16 and 27, 2005, Scott M. Hudlow (Appendix I for qualifications) conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire proposed project area. Hudlow surveyed in north/south transects at 15-meter (49 feet) intervals across the entire parcel, based upon the field patterns. All archaeological material more than fifty years of age or earlier encountered during the inventory would have been recorded.

12 9.0 Report of Findings

No archaeological resources were identified; however, one cultural resource was identified, house P-1, Antongiovanni House (Figures 2-6). A second previously identified cultural resource, the Stine Canal, cuts across the extreme northwest corner of the property (Figures 7-9).

The Antongiovanni House is the center of a sizable complex, which includes two houses, an office, pump house, a garage, two barns, horse corrals, two domestic outbuildings, and a large cactus garden. The cactus garden borders the Stine

Figure 2 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, North and East Elevations

Figure 3 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, Pump House, South Elevation

Canal, which crosses the extreme northwest corner of the property; the property is heavily shaded with several large evergreens and ash trees. The homeplace is also littered with several orange trees.

The main house, which fronts Panama Lane, is a 1 1/2-story frame house with clapboard siding. The house appears to be empty. It has a dormer on the north elevation, which is centered on the off-center entrance. Dormers are also present on the east and west elevations. An integrated porch shades the north

14 elevation; it rests on tapered pillars. Single pane windows and a nine-pane sash window provide light. The house is decorated with open eaves and decoratively cut rafter butts. A shed addition has been attached to the west elevation.

As of September 2007, the Antongiovanni House is gone. The Bakersfield Fire Department burned the house in a training exercise (see Figure 6).

Figure 4 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, House, North and West Elevations

Figure 5 House P-1, Antongiovanni House, Garage and Office, South and West Elevations

Figure 6 House P-1, Antongiovanni House Location, View toward the South

17 The Stine Canal, CA-KER-7332, crosses the extreme northwest corner of the property, and is located adjacent to the Antongiovanni House (see Figures 7- 9). The Stine Canal section is approximately 200 feet long and is disconnected from the canal to the north. The Stine Canal was located in 1872 (Lewis Publishing Company, reprinted 1974). This section of the canal is not in use, and the canal’s overall integrity has been compromised due to modern alterations to the canal’s structure, including steel culverts pipes and lining the canal with concrete and steel in various locations (see Figure 9).

Figure 7 Stine Canal, View toward the Northeast

Figure 8 Stine Canal, View toward the Southwest

Figure 9 Stine Canal, View toward the Southwest across Gosford Road

10.0 Management Recommendations

One cultural resource was identified; house P-1, Antongiovanni House. It is a dilapidated early twentieth-century farmhouse with a large complex. The house is abandoned, empty, and no longer maintained. Additionally, the house has been significantly altered though additions and does not embody embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Further, it is does not represent the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. Additionally, the house has not yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history, and is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

20 California’s history and cultural heritage; are associated with the lives or persons important to our past. As such, house P-1, Antongiovanni House, is ineligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources under Criteria A, B, C, or D, per California Public Resources Code 15064.5(a)3(A-D).

No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation.

11.0 References

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Lewis Publishing Company 1974 History of the counties of Fresno, Tulare, and Kern, CALIFORNIA, Illustrated Containing a History of this Important Section of the Pacific Coast from the Earliest Period of its Occupancy to the Present Time, together with Glimpses of its Prospective Future, with Profuse illustrations of its Beautiful Scenery. Full-page Portraits of Some of its earliest Eminent Men. California Traveler, Inc.

Maynard, John A. 1997 Bakersfield: A Centennial Portrait. Cherbo Publishing, Encino, California.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida, Academic Press. Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton

21 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Parr, Robert E. and Richard Osborne 1992 Route Adoption Study for Highway 58, Kern County, California. Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California.

Wallace, William J. 1978 "Southern Valley Yokuts" in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, California, Robert F. Heizer, ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 437-445.

Warren, Claude N. and M. B. McKusiak 1959 A Burial Complex from the southern San Joaquin Valley. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1959: 17-26.

Warren, Claude N. 1967 "The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis" American Antiquity 32(2): 168-185.

Appendix I

23 Scott M. Hudlow 1405 Sutter Lane Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 834-9183

Education

The George Washington University M.A. American Studies, 1993 Specialization in Architectural History and Historical Archaeology

University of California, Berkeley B.A. History, 1987 B.A. Anthropology, 1987 Specialization in Colonial History and Historical Archaeology

Public Service

3/94-12/02 Historic Preservation Commission. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305.

7/97-12/01 Newsletter Editor. California History Action, newsletter for the California Council for the Promotion of History.

Relevant Work Experience 8/96- Adjutant Faculty. Bakersfield College, 1801 Panorama Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93305. Teach History 17A, Introduction to American History and Anthropology 5, Introduction to North American Indians.

11/95- Owner, Sole Proprietorship. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 1405 Sutter Lane, Bakersfield California 93309. Operate cultural resource management business. Manage contracts, respond to RFP's, bill clients, manage temporary employees. Conduct Phase I cultural resource surveys for private and public clients; including the archaeological or architectural survey, filing of survey forms, historic research, assessing impact and writing reports. Evaluate archaeological sites or historical properties in lieu of their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places in association with Section 106 and 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

Full resume available upon request.

Appendix II

September 27, 2016

Jennie Eng City of Bakersfield Community Development Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

Agency Project: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Map 7262

District CEQA Reference No: 20160600

Dear Ms. Eng:

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the above referenced project. Per the Project Referral, the project consists of a proposal to subdivide 80.5 acres into 287 single family lots. The proposed project will be built in eight (8) phases with each phase lasting approximately 9 months and constructing approximately 36 single family residences. Full buildout is anticipated for January 2023. The 80.5-acre project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield, on the northwest corner of Reliance Drive and Berkshire Road.

The District offers the following comments:

1. Based on information provided to the District, project specific emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed District significance thresholds of 10 tons/year NOX, 10 tons/year ROG, and 15 tons/year PM10. Therefore, the District concludes that project specific criteria pollutant emissions would have no significant adverse impact on air quality.

2. Based on information provided to the District, at full build-out the proposed project would be equal to or greater than 50 residential dwelling units. Therefore, the District concludes that the proposed project would be subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

District Rule 9510 is intended to mitigate a project’s impact on air quality through project design elements or by payment of applicable off-site mitigation fees. Any District CEQA Reference No: 20160600 Page 2 of 3

applicant subject to District Rule 9510 is required to submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the District no later than applying for final discretionary approval, and to pay any applicable off-site mitigation fees before issuance of the first building permit. If approval of the subject project constitutes the last discretionary approval by your agency, the District recommends that demonstration of compliance with District Rule 9510, including payment of all applicable fees, be made a condition of project approval.

More information regarding District Rule 9510 can be obtained by: • E-mailing inquiries to: [email protected] ; • Visiting the District’s website at: http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm ; or, • For project specific assistance, the District recommends the applicant contact the District’s Indirect Source Review (ISR) staff at (559) 230-6000.

3. The proposed project may be subject to District rules and regulations, including Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). The above list of rules is neither exhaustive nor exclusive.

More information regarding compliance with District rules and regulations can be obtained by: • Visiting the District’s website at http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm for a complete listing of all current District rules and regulation, or • Visiting the District’s website at http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/ PM10/compliance_PM10.htm for information on controlling fugitive dust emissions, or • Contacting the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office by phone at (559) 230-5888.

4. The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the project proponent.

District CEQA Reference No: 20160600 Page 3 of 3

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Georgia Stewart at (559) 230 -5937 .

Sincerely,

Arnaud Marjollet Director of Permit Services

For: Brian Clements Program Manager

AM: gs COVER SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: Consent Calendar Public Hearing5.(c.)

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacquelyn R Kitchen, Planning Director PLANNER: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner DATE: WARD: Ward 4 SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201: Rosedale Land and Development Inc., representing Gregory and Catherine Hillier (property owners), is proposing to subdivide 11.30 acres into 6 commercial parcels and one sump parcel in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road in Northwest Bakersfield. Use of a previously adopted Negative Declaration will also be considered. APPLICANT: Rosedale Land and Development Inc. OWNER: Rosedale Land and Development Inc. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Staff Report Resolution with Exhibits Resolution Petrotech Report Backup Material Correspondence Backup Material

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

TO: Chair Lomas and Members of the Planning Commission AGENDA ITEM: ______

FROM: Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Planning Director APPROVED: ______

DATE: October 6, 2016

SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12201 (WARD 4)

APPLICANT: SUBDIVIDER PROPERTY OWNER Rosedale Land and Development Inc. Gregory and Catherine Hillier P.O Box 20247 16212 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93390 Bakersfield, CA 93314

LOCATION: The project is located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road in northwest Bakersfield. (APN #: 408-011-57)

Figure 1. Location Map

RECOMMENDATION:

Motion to adopt a Resolution and recommended findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201with conditions.

Prepared by Elisheva/ S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 sr-pc.docx Page 1 of 5 September 28, 2016 VTPM 12201

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Rosedale Land and Development Inc., representing Gregory and Catherine Hillier, is proposing to subdivide 11.30 acres into 6 commercial parcels, including one sump parcel, in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road in northwest Bakersfield, including a request for a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060.A.4.

Figure 2: SITE VISIT PHOTO View from the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road, looking northwest

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

Background & Timeline:

GPA/ZC 14-0329 – The General Plan land use was changed from RR (Rural Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on January 21, 2015. The zoning upon annexation was approved from County A-1 (Limited Agriculture) to City C-2 (Regional Commercial) on February 11, 2015.

Annexation to the City of Bakersfield - The parcel map area was annexed to the City of Bakersfield on April 25, 2016 as Annexation #660, Heath #1.

Site Plan Review 16-0054 – Preliminary Plans for a 70,589 square foot retail center were approved by recommendation of the Site Plan Review Committee on May 3, 2016

Analysis:

The proposed vesting tentative parcel subdivision consists of five parcels and one parcel to contain a sump for commercial development. The five commercial parcels range from 45,225 square feet to 146,665 square feet. The application was deemed complete on August 3, 2016.

Relationship to Surrounding Uses:

The project site is depicted as General Commercial on the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Although the project site is surrounded by 1 to 2.5 acre

Prepared by Elisheva / S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 sr-pc.docx Page 2 of 5

VTPM 12201 residential lots in the surrounding neighborhoods, the commercial land use and zoning was recently approved as an appropriate next to residential with GPA/ZC 14-0329, approved by the Planning Commission in 2015. The site is surrounded by:

Table A. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts

LAND USE ZONING EXISTING DIRECTION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE NORTH R-R County A-1 Vacant SOUTH GC C-2 Agricultural EAST ER County E (1 acre) Residential WEST RR County E (2 ½ acre) Vacant DI

Land Use Designations: ER: 1 du/na RR: Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit GC : General Commercial

Consistency/Deviation from Design Standards:

The applicant has requested that the development of the parcel map occur with the installation of septic system on a temporary basis rather than by connection to a sewer system, which is required by City Standards. The temporary septic system installation was approved with Site Plan Review 16-0054 for the site. The project met the exception to allow a temporary septic system because the project location was greater than 1000 feet from the nearest sewer trunk line (Stockdale Ranch Trunk Line). With the submittal of this parcel map application, the Public Works Director confirmed that the location is still greater than 1000 feet from the nearest City sewer trunk line. Condition No. #6.2 requires that a “dry” sewer main be installed to the future point of connection with the existing right-of-way, that the temporary septic system be designed for an efficient switch to the future City sewer system.

Circulation:

The project site is bound by Stockdale Highway on the south and Heath Road on the east, both streets are shown as arterial street on the General Plan Circulation element. The City-County boundary runs north-south within the west half of Heath Road. Therefore, the County has requested that an encroachment permit be obtained for any work that is undertaken in the County road right-of-way. (Condition No. 16) All traffic circulation between the parcels proposed for this parcel map will be provided by recorded access easements, as required in Condition No. 21). The closest Golden Empire Transit (GET) bus line for this map is the #82 bus line, 2 ½ miles to the east of this project.

The City's Bikeway Master Plan identifies both Stockdale Highway and Heath Road as Class 2 facilities (bike lanes). Bike lanes do not currently exist and at the time the property is developed, lane striping will be required with the construction of street improvements. However, the Traffic Engineer will evaluate if striping should be delayed if its installation will compromise public safety (e.g. short lengths of unconnected bike lanes that would confuse drivers and cyclists increasing the likelihood of accidents). Striping would then occur at the time the City added bike lanes along the street with connections to the existing bikeway network.

Prepared by Elisheva / S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 sr-pc.docx Page 3 of 5

VTPM 12201

Figure 3. Aerial Photo

Mineral Rights:

The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.4. This section allows the advisory agency to determine to its satisfaction based on competent, technical evidence that if production of minerals from beneath the subdivision is improbable, then waiver of the mineral interest signatures may be waived on the final map. The subdivider submitted a report entitled “Potential for Future Hydrocarbon Exploration & Development, Section 33, Township 29 South, Range 26 East, Assessor Parcel Numbers 408-011-24 & 408-011-25,” (May 11, 2016), by Bradford A. DeWitt, PE, petroleum engineer. The report concludes that production of minerals from beneath the subdivision is improbable. Also, the subdivider has submitted verification that the notice requirements have been satisfied. Based on the conclusion of the report, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral interest signatures on the final map.

Staff received correspondence from Fred Rappleye, West Coast Land Service, disagreeing with the conclusions of the Petrotech report. The letter is attached as background material. The applicant was notified and has contacted Mr. Rappleye to discuss the matter.

Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources submitted a letter stating the project site is within the McClung Oil Field. However, there are no known wells on the property and no known active operator of record. If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must consult with the Division regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code.

Prepared by Elisheva / S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 sr-pc.docx Page 4 of 5

VTPM 12201

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an initial study was prepared for the original project (GPA/ZC #14-0329) of the subject property and a Negative Declaration was adopted on January 21, 2015. In accordance with CEQA section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken and no new environmental impacts have been identified. Mitigation measures from the related project which address air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources and traffic impacts have been included in the attached conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 23-35).

Noticing:

Notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield for the project with the associated proposed Negative Declaration was advertised in the newspaper and posted on the bulletin board of the Bakersfield City Planning Department. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified about the hearing and the proposed subdivision at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with State law. The applicant has provided proof that signs giving public notice of the proposed tract map were posted on the property 20 to 60 days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission.

Conclusion:

As noted above, the applicant has requested approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201 to subdivide 11.30 acres into 5 commercial parcels and one sump parcel, ranging in size from 45,225 square feet to 146,665 square feet, in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone. The purpose of this request is to provide separate parcels for future commercial tenants.

With regard to this request, Staff finds that subdivision of the 11.30 acre parcel into 7 parcels for commercial development is reasonable and Staff recommends approval of VTPM 12201 as requested, subject to conditions of approval.

Exhibits: (Attached)

A. Resolution with Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval B. Location Map with Zoning C. Tentative Map

Background Material: Petrotech Report Correspondence

Prepared by Elisheva / S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 sr-pc.docx Page 5 of 5

ATTACHMENT A DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12201 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY AND HEATH ROAD.

WHEREAS, Rosedale Land and Development Inc. for Gregory and Catherine Hillier, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201 (the “Project”), consisting of 5 parcels and one sump parcel on 11.30 acres for commercial development, as shown on attached Exhibit “C”, located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road as shown on attached Exhibit “B; and

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on August 3, 2016; and

WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared and approved by the City Council on January 21, 2015, in conjunction with Project No. GPA/ZC 14- 0329, in accordance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. Staff determined that the proposed activity is a project and an initial study was prepared for the original project (Project No. GPA/ZC 14- 0329) of the subject property and a Negative Declaration was adopted on January 21, 2015 by the City Council for the original project, and duly noticed for public review.

3. Said Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany approval of the Project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified. The Project will not significantly impact the physical environment because mitigation measures relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and traffic impacts have been incorporated into the Project.

5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent with the General Commercial land use classification on the property. Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan.

6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A.4. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners’ signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.4., the subdivider has presented competent technical evidence that the production of minerals beneath the subdivision is improbable and has provided notice of such as required in BMC Section 16.20.060 A.4., to each mineral owner and lessee of record.

7. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for the public health, welfare, and safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield as follows:

1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. This map pertains to the Negative Declaration previously approved in conjunction with Project No. GPA/ZC 14-0329.

3. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12201 is hereby approved with conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".

AYES: NOES: ABSENT:

APPROVED

BARBARA LOMAS, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Location Map Exhibit C: Tentative Map

By elisheva\ S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 pc-res.docx

EXHIBIT “A” VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12201 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

PUBLIC WORKS

1. The developer is required to construct an improvement (Heath Road) which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.

2. The developer shall comply with all of the GPA/ZC 14-0329 conditions.

3. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in one phase. 3.1. The following shall occur prior to recordation of the final map: Construct Heath Road, including the median, for the full extent of the street lying within the tract’s boundary.

If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.

4. Prior to recordation of each Final Map, the subdivider shall 4.1. submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City. 4.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract. Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 2 of 12

4.3. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up- front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.

4.4. submit for the City’s Review and approval C.C. & R.’s and Property Owner’s Association By-Laws for the use and maintenance of all non-dedicated, shared facilities. Among those non-dedicated, shared facilities will be the on-site sewer main lines and laterals and storm water retention basin(s) and associated storm drain lines and appurtenant facilities.

4.5. provide easements for required facilities not within the border of the phase being recorded.

4.6. Per Resolution 035-13 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the “complete streets” policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.

4.7. ensure that each cable television company provides notice to the City Engineer of its intention to occupy the utility trench.

4.8. Pay local mitigation fees. Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee nor included with normal development improvements) as indicated in list of mitigation measures from the traffic study in Tables 6. An updated estimate, based upon current costs, and fee schedule shall be developed by the applicant and approved prior to recordation of a map or issuance of a building permit. Proportionate shares from the study as follows:

4.8.1 Allen Rd & Brimhall Rd, Restripe EBR to Shared EBT/EBR, 1 WBT (striping only), 1 SBT, 1.51% share 4.8.2 Wegis Rd & Stockdale Hwy, Install Signal, 5.9% 4.8.3 Allen Rd & Stockdale Hwy, Add 1 EBR, 4.46% share Notes: NB – north bound, SB – south bound, WB – west bound, EB – east bound L – Left turn lane, T – Through lane, R – Right turn lane

4.9. Pay Regional Transportation Impact Fees.

4.10. If the parcel map is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s NPDES permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal shall include both source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) and structural treatment control BMPs. By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 3 of 12

5. On and off site road improvements are required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development). Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.

6. Prior to grading plan review, submit the following for review and approval: 6.1. a comprehensive drainage study for the entire subdivision. Ensure the retention basin is designed to retain the drainage from the entire subdivision; said retention basin will be privately maintained.

6.2. a sanitary sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision. The developer will be allowed to use a temporary on-site sanitary sewer septic system. The developer shall pay the sewer connection fees and Allen Road I PSA fees at the time of issuance of building permits.

The developer shall install “dry” sewer main to the future point of connection within existing right of way as approved by City Engineer. The on-site private sewer system will be constructed to connect to the temporary septic system and the future system in the City right of way; said on-site system shall be designed to easily switch over from the on-site temporary septic system to the future City system.

6.3. verification from the responsible authority that all the wells have been properly abandoned.

7. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes for future traffic signals.

8. The subdivider shall either construct the full width landscaped median island in their Stockdale Highway frontage or pay $100.00 per LF for the future construction of the median. The subdivider shall construct the full width landscaped median in their Heath Road frontage.

9. The cost shall be paid prior to recordation of the map.

10. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.

11. Turning movements on Stockdale Highway shall be limited to right in, right out, and left in only. Turning movements on Heath Road shall be limited to right in, right out, and left in only. The exact locations of driveways and left in access will be reviewed and approved on the street improvement plans.

12. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and/or slatted chain link fence and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 4 of 12

13. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 22, 1997.

14. It is recommended that the on-site sewer system shall be inspected with video equipment designed for this purpose and as approved by the City Engineer. If the developer chooses to video the on-site sewer system, then the following procedure is recommended: The television camera shall have the capability of rotating 360, in order to view and record the top and sides of the pipe, as required. The video inspection shall be witnessed by the subdivider’s engineer, who will also initial and date the “Chain of Custody” form. Any pipe locations revealed to be not in compliance with the plans and specifications shall be corrected. A recorded video cassette, completed “Chain of Custody” form, and a written log (which includes the stationing, based on the stationing of the approved plans, of all connected laterals) of the inspection shall be provided for viewing and shall be approved by the subdivider’s engineer prior to acceptance. After the subdivider’s acceptance of the system, the video cassette, forms, and logs shall be submitted to the City Engineer.

15. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.

16. The developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Kern County Public Works for any work within a Kern County road right-of-way.

CITY ATTORNEY

17. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 5 of 12

PLANNING

18. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 66474.2.

19. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit a “will serve” letter or other documentation acceptable to the Planning Director from the water purveyor stating the purveyor will provide water service to the phase to be recorded.

Required for orderly development and provide for the public health, welfare and safety by ensuring water service to the subdivision at the time of final map recordation because the water purveyor has included an expiration date in the initial “will serve” letter.

Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

21. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of each final map, subdivider shall provide a common access and parking easement encumbering the subject parcel map. Easement shall be submitted to the City Attorney and Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation of a final map.

Police power to provide for orderly development.

22. The required walls along the north and west sides of the commercial parcel shall be installed on the property line after removal of any existing fences.

BMC Section 16.28.170 K allows Planning Commission to require wall based on a finding that the wall is necessary for orderly development.

Mitigation Measures from Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 14-0239

Air Quality and Green House Gas Mitigation Measures: 23. The proposed project will have air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and use of the project site. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they will/have met all air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Mitigation for Air Quality and GHG impacts.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 6 of 12

24. As the project will be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures will be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The mitigation measures to be taken are as follows: a. Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. b. Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. c. Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. d. Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. e. Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. f. Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. g. When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. h. Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). i. Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. j. Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. k. Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period). Mitigation for Air Quality and GHG impacts.

25. The GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities:

a. Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. b. Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. c. Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight (8) cumulative hours per day. d. Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. e. Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations. f. All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 7 of 12

g. On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines. h. On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines. i. All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks. j. All construction activities within the project area shall be discontinued during the first stage smog alerts. k. Construction and grading activities shall not be allowed during first stage O3 alerts. First stage O3 alerts are declared when the O3 level exceeds 0.20 ppm (1-hour average). Mitigation for Air Quality and GHG impacts.

26. The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance to ensure that the proposed project emissions are not exceeded: a. The project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. Applicants shall be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures in the AQAP, SJVAPCD Rules, Traffic Control Measures, Regulation VIII and Indirect Source Rules for the SJVAPCD. The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of: i. Rapid cure cutback asphalt; ii. Medium cure cutback asphalt; iii. Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). iv. The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Mitigation for Air Quality and GHG impacts.

27. The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce the potential for Greenhouse Gas emissions from the project. These measures will be required to ensure that the proposed project emissions are reduced to extent feasible and as required under state regulation: a. The project shall comply with the requirements of state and/or federal legislation and/or regulation to reduce or eliminate production of Greenhouse Gasses. Mitigation for GHG impacts.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 8 of 12

Biological Impact Mitigation Measures:

28. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance.

29. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project-related disturbance be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1–August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 9 of 12

Owl Consortium (CBOC, 1993). A copy of the survey shall also be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. b. If the survey results indicate the presence of burrowing owl nests, then prior to grading; including staging, clearing, and grubbing, another clearance survey for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the Project commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area shall mean any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. c. If any ground disturbing activities will occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the Project footprint, implementation of avoidance measures will be warranted. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant must follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). If the Project applicant proposes to evict burrowing owls that may be present, the CDFW recommends passive relocation during the non-breeding season. Mitigation for Biological Resource impacts.

Recommended Mitigation Measures contained in the Biological Survey for the Project Site:

30. With implementation of the measures below, special-status species populations within the project vicinity are not expected to be adversely affected by the project:

a. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance to detect special-status wildlife species that may occupy the site. Avoidance buffers shall be consistent with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW standards for individual species as recommended below. b. If ground disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys shall be done no more than 1 week prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance will occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged. Appropriate avoidance measures shall be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 10 of 12

shall be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet; 2) burrowing owl – 600 feet (see Recommendation #4 for additional measures regarding burrowing owl); 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles; 3) other raptors – 500 feet. c. If any San Joaquin kit fox dens (potential, known, or suspected natal/pupping) are observed during any subsequent clearance surveys, including the 14-day, pre-activity survey, the recommendations contained in USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011b) shall be implemented. If any known kit fox dens for which the recommended avoidance of 100 feet cannot be maintained, or suspected natal/pupping dens are discovered, CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance. d. If burrows that show evidence of occupation by burrowing owls are discovered during any subsequent clearance surveys, including the 14-day, pre-activity survey, the procedures for monitoring a potential owl burrow contained in the CDFW Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation (CDFG 2012) shall be implemented. e. During construction of the project, all pipe and culverts shall be inspected prior to moving or welding to prevent injury or entrapment of wildlife. Pipe that cannot be inspected (due to bends, etc.) should be capped, or otherwise covered at the end of each day to prevent entrapment of wildlife. If any special-status wildlife is found entrapped in a pipe section, the pipe shall be avoided and the animal(s) left to leave of its own accord, except as otherwise authorized by CDFW and USFWS. f. All steep-walled trenches or excavations shall include escape ramps. At least one escape ramp shall be provided in any on-site trench or excavation at no more than a 2:1 slope. Such trenches or excavations shall be inspected for wildlife immediately prior to backfilling. g. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be implemented on any non-public roads during construction, operation, and maintenance activities. Extra caution shall be taken at night because San Joaquin kit fox are primarily nocturnal. h. Prior to conducting work on site, all employees and contractors shall be trained to be aware of listed species that may be present, and how to avoid impacts to them. i. Firearms and pets shall be prohibited from the project site. j. All food-related trash such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in closed containers and regularly removed from the project site. No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed. k. Any take (harm, harassment, injury, killing, etc., or any attempt to engage in these activities) shall be reported promptly to the designated federal and/or state agency, as appropriate. Mitigation for Biological Resource impacts.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 11 of 12

Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures:

31. Prior to ground disturbance activities, the applicant/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present on the site. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Community Development Department – Planning Division that they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground-disturbance activities. Mitigation for Cultural Resource impacts.

32. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for further evaluation. Mitigation for Cultural Resource impacts.

33. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work shall cease in the area of the find pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at that location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resource Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately. Mitigation for Cultural Resource impacts.

34. Prior to ground-disturbance activities associated with this project, personnel associates with grading shall be informed of the importance of the potential cultural and archaeological resources (i.e. archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, human remains, etc.) that may be encountered during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the regulatory protections afforded to those resources. This training shall be conducted by representatives from the Tejon Indian Tribe. The personnel shall be informed of procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not collect artifacts. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Community Development Department – Planning Division that they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground-disturbance activities. This documentation should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s) that conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of those who were trained. Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on-site supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified archaeologist and the Tejon Indian Tribe. The developer shall provide the Tejon Indian Tribe information on excavation depth of the construction site. Mitigation for Cultural Resource impacts.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

Exhibit “A” VTPM 12201 Page 12 of 12

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

35. Intersection improvements needed by the year 2035 to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the project are shown in Table 6: Table 6 Future Intersection Improvements and Local Mitigation Local Mitigation Project % Share Total Improvements Required (Improvements not # Intersection for Local by 2035 covered by RTIF or Mitigation adjacent development)

Install Signal - 2 EBL, 1 EBT, 1 EBR, Renfro Rd & 3 2 WBL, 1 WBT, 1 WBR, 2 NBL, 1 NBT, - - Brimhall Rd 2 SBL, 1 SBT, 1 SBR

Jenkins Rd & Install Signal - 1 EBT, 1 EBR, 1 WBT, 4 - - Brimhall Rd 1 WBR, 1 SBR

Allen Rd & Restripe EBR to Shared EBT/EBR, Restripe EBR to Shared 5 1 1.51% Brimhall Rd 1 WBT, 1 SBT EBT/EBR, 1 WBT , 1 SBT

1 1 Install Signal - 2 EBL , 1 EBT , 1 EBR, Wegis Rd & 1 1 1 11 2 WBL, 1 WBT , 1 WBR ,1 SBL , Install Signal 5.91% Stockdale Hwy 1 1 1 SBT , 1 SBR

Install Signal - 2 EBL, 1 EBT, 2 WBL, Heath Rd & 12 1 WBT, 2 NBL, 1 NBT, 1 NBR, 2 SBL, - - Stockdale Hwy 1 SBT, 1 SBR

Allen Rd & 15 1 EBR 1 EBR 4.46% Stockdale Hwy

Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB= Westbound, EB = Eastbound L = Left-Turn Lane, T = Through Lane, R= Right-Turn Lane 1Striping Only

Mitigation for Traffic impacts.

By elisheva S:\TRACTS\2201\PC Docs\12201 Exh A.docx\

COUNTY E(1) RS LEGEND VTPMCOUNTY E(2 COUNTY COUNTY (ZONE DISTRICTS) 1/2) RS E(1/2) RS E(1/2) RS

WELTYWAY R-1 One Family Dwelling RD N 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 12201SO COUNTY E(2 R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling HN ARABELLA AVE CITY OF BAKERSFIELDJO 1/2) RS 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size E Estate 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size R-S Residential Suburban

MOON RANCH ST COUNTY COUNTY 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit E(1/2) RS E(1/2) RS R-S-( ) Residential Suburban

SABA WAY COUNTY E(2 BENNY LN 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size 1/2) RS R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling BLACK HAWK AVE 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family) BLACK HAWK AVE 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily) COUNTY E(2 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit 1/2) RS COUNTY R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling E(1/2) RS 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling COUNTY 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size E(1) RS 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit

HEATHRD R-H Residential Holding 20 acre min lot size COUNTY A Agriculture DOMINARI CT A-1 LEGACY CT COUNTY 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size E(1) RS A-20A Agriculture MOON RANCH ST COUNTY 20 acre min lot size

D PUD Planned Unit Development

CITY E COUNTY TT Travel Trailer Park COUNTY E (2 N

T E(1) RS MH Mobilehome

1/2) \ DI S

E L C-O Professional and Administrative Office

PARADUXX CT I

M R-1 C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Regional Commercial C-C Commercial Center T TION C C-2 TRADI C-B Central Business SPOTTSWOODE LN C-2 PCD Planned Commercial Development M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 General Manufacturing M-3 Heavy Industrial Y P Automobile Parking COUNTY COUNTY HW RE Recreation E Ch Church Overlay CITY DAL STOCKDALE HWY CITY STOCK OS Open Space HOSP Hospital Overlay AD Architectural Design Overlay FP-P Floodplain Primary FP-S Floodplain Secondary AA Airport Approach DI Drilling Island PE Petroleum Extraction Combining SC Senior Citizen Overlay R-3 HD Hillside Development Combining R-2 C-2 WM- West Ming Specific Plan

STOCKDALE RANCH EXHIBIT B PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE R-1

C-O/P.C.D. Feet STOCKDALE RANCH OS R-1 0 250 500 DR

Document Name: 2016_08_12

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

PETROTECH RESOURCES REPORT

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

CORRESPONDENCE

COVER SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: Consent Calendar Public Hearing5.(d.)

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacquelyn R Kitchen, Planning Director PLANNER: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner DATE: WARD: Ward 1 SUBJECT: Zone Change 16-0197: East Panama LLC, (property owner), is proposing a Zone Change on a 14.61 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and Sparks Street in Southeast Bakersfield, from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) zone, or a more restrictive district. A proposed Negative Declaration will also be considered. APPLICANT: Panama Lane Properties LLC OWNER: Panama Lane Properties, LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of East Panama Lane and Sparks Street

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.

ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Report Staff Report Resolution-Negative Declaration Resolution Resolution-Zone Change Resolution Neg Dec - Initial Study Backup Material

ZC 16-0197

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A proposed zone change from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to an R-2 (Limited Multi- Family Dwelling) zone on 14.61 acres for purposes of multi-family residential development.

Figure 2: SITE VISIT PHOTO View from the southeast corner of the 14.61 acre parcel looking northwest.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

Background:

Zone Change 05-1507 – On March 8, 2006, the Bakersfield City Council approved zone changes from an A (Agricultural) zoning district to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone on 108.88 acres, and from an A zoning district to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zoning district on 1.56 acres. The proposed zone change area is within the R-1 zone approved with Zone Change 05- 1507.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 7029 – On October 4, 2007, Bakersfield Planning Commission approved 127 lots within a 30.17 acre area. The proposed zone change is within the southern 14.61 acres of the VTTM 7029 map.

Analysis:

The proposed zone change is from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to an R-2 (Limited Multi- Family Dwelling) zone on 14.61 acres. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan for the project area, depicting 44 duplexes totaling 88 dwelling units, as shown on Figure 3 below. The general vicinity is undergoing urbanization. It is expected surrounding property will be developed pursuant to the residential land uses shown on the General Plan. The proposed

Prepared by elisheva \ September 26, 2016 \S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 sr-pc.docx Page 2 ZC 16-0197 zone change is compatible with the existing land uses. The application was deemed complete on August 1, 2016. Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan

As mentioned before, the proposed zone change is the southern 14.61 acres of VTTM 7029. If the zone change is approved, the developer will submit a substantial conformance review request to the Planning Director for VTTM 7029 showing the southern half as one large lot, which will include the entire area of this zone change request. Vesting rights given to VTTM 7029 will be voided within the Zone Change 16-0197 project area (Exhibit B-1, Condition No. 10). Public Works improvements, required in VTTM 7029 for the southern 14.61 acres, are required in Exhibit B-1, Condition Nos. 1-8, upon development of the zone change area.

Circulation:

The proposed zone change area contains East Panama Lane (an arterial street) on the south side of the area, and the future Sparks Street (a collector street) will be on the west side of the area. The closest Golden Empire Transit Bus route is a 1/3 of a mile to the west.

The City's Bikeway Master Plan identifies East Panama Lane as a Class 2 facility (bike lanes). Bike lanes do not currently exist and at the time the property is developed, lane striping will be required with the construction of street improvements. However, the Traffic Engineer will evaluate if striping should be delayed if its installation will compromise public safety (e.g. short lengths of unconnected bike lanes that would confuse drivers and cyclists increasing the

Prepared by elisheva \ September 26, 2016 \S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 sr-pc.docx Page 3 ZC 16-0197 likelihood of accidents). Striping would then occur at the time the City added bike lanes along the street with connections to the existing bikeway network.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

The project site is depicted as LR (Low Density Residential) on the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The applicant states that any future project, such as the conceptual site plan ( Figure 3), within the proposed zone change area site will be able to meet the LR density of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.

The site is surrounded by:

Table A. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts

LAND USE ZONING EXISTING DIRECTION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE Vacant, approved NORTH LR R-1 VTTM 7029 Agricultural, approved SOUTH LR R-1 VTTM 7029 EAST LR R-1 Agricultural WEST Vacant, approved LR R-1 VTTM 7029 (under construction)

Land Use Designations: LR: < 7.26 du/na

Figure 3. Aerial Photo

Prepared by elisheva \ September 26, 2016 \S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 sr-pc.docx Page 4 ZC 16-0197

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved March 8, 2006 for the previous zone change (Zone Change 05-1507) which included the current project area. Staff prepared an Initial Study to examine the environmental impact of an additional 27 dwelling units to the Zone Change 05- 1507 project area. Based upon an initial environmental assessment, staff has determined the proposed project will not significantly affect the physical environment or existing residential development in the area, therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and the Initial Study is attached as Exhibit “B”. Mitigation measures as a result of the Initial Study address biological resources, cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials. The hazard identified for the project site is that it is situated under the Bakersfield Municipal Airport landing approach zone; the mitigation requires that an avigation easement be recorded for the zone change area. All mitigation conditions are found in Exhibit A-1, Conditions Nos. 2 – 5. To address the water availability for the additional 27 dwelling units, the applicant provided a Water Will Serve letter for Tract 7029, dated September 6, 2016, from California Water Service (Cal Water) stating that Cal Water would be able to provide water to the project area.

CONCLUSION

The proposed project changes the zoning district from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to an R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) zone on 14.61 acres for residential development. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan encourages the intensification of land use that maintains continuity of existing development. The proposal would provide zoning compatible with a residential duplex housing project proposed for the project site. The proposed project is located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and future Sparks Street, and will change the zoning for the southern 14.61 acres of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 7029. The project area has R-1 zoning surrounding the project site. The General Plan land use designation will remain at the same density of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre, so the project will not exceed the allowed residential densities in the surrounding areas.

Staff is recommending the approval of the proposed project with conditions for improvement plans consistent with VTTM 7029, for the developer to obtain a substantial conformance review for VTTM 7029 and for the removal of vesting rights within the zone change area. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request subject to conditions and mitigation measures outlined in the attached Resolutions.

NOTICING:

Prepared by elisheva \ September 26, 2016 \S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 sr-pc.docx Page 5 ZC 16-0197

Exhibits: (Attached)

A. Negative Declaration Resolution with Exhibits: A-1. Mitigation Measures A-2. Location Map B. Zone Change Resolution with Exhibits: B-1. Conditions of Approval B-2. Location Map B-3. Legal Description

C. Initial Study.

Prepared by elisheva \ September 26, 2016 \S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 sr-pc.docx Page 6 Exhibit A DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PANAMA LANE AND FUTURE SPARKS STREET. (ZC NO. 16-0197).

WHEREAS, East Panama Lane LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department requesting an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) on 14.61 acres located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and future Sparks Street, as shown on attached Exhibit “A- 2”, (the "Project"); and

WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted for related Zone Change 05-1507 and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared and approved by the City Council on March 8, 2006 , in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations 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

WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, initial study and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

Page 1 of 3 1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 20 days prior to the hearing.

2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study was completed. A Negative Declaration was prepared and properly noticed for public review.

3. An initial study was prepared for the original project (Project No. 05-1507) of the subject property and a Negative Declaration was adopted on March 8, 2006 by the City Council Planning Commission for the original project, and duly noticed for public review.

4. A Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with CEQA, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to those impacts identified in the initial study have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council.

3. The project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A-1 for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit A-2, both of which are incorporated herein.

Page 2 of 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on October 6, 2016, on a motion by Commissioner _____and seconded by Commissioner ______, by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED

______BARBARA LOMAS, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A-1: Mitigation Measures Exhibit A-2: Location Map

By: elisheva \ S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 PC RES ENV Exh A.docx

Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A-1 MITIGATION MEASURES ZONE CHANGE 16-0197

CITY ATTORNEY

1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

PLANNING

Biological Impact Mitigation Measures

2. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance.

By elisheva /S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 Exh A-1 mitigation.docx Exhibit “A-1” Zone Change 16-0197 Page 2 of 3

payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

3. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 – August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures

4. If during construction activities or ground disturbance, cultural resources are uncovered, the subdivider shall stop work and retain a qualified archeologist for further study. Subdivider shall notify the proper authorities and be subject to any mitigation measures required of the archeologist.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5. Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lot or parcel within this zone change area, the developer shall record an avigation easement for each the lot or parcel. The covenant must be submitted for review and approval by the City Planning Director and to the City Attorney prior to recordation.

By: jeng / S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 Exh A-1 mitigation.docx L R-1

LEGEND

Y M-1 R-1 E R-1 R-1 R

R V

O A M-2 A R-1 A

G ZC F EXHIBIT A-2 (ZONE DISTRICTS) E FAIRVIEW RD R-1 R-1 One Family Dwelling C-1 R-1 C-2 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 16-0197 R-1 R-1 R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size BURCHFIELD AVE BURCHFIELD AVE T EEstate

R-1 S 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size M-1 Y

S A R-1

W R-S Residential Suburban

R R 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit

E A BOHANNAN AVE R-1

P R R-S-( ) Residential Suburban

L L 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size

P MALIBAR AVE

P E

O N R-1 Y R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling

E R-1 K R R-1 STOVER S

R I

A E R T 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)

G AVE T K K R-1 V R-1 S

S 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)

T N

O S 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit

N R-1

Y N

L C

N R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling L

D C-2 A

D N L R-1 E

C G O

O 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size N

I O

W T

W 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit

O R

L N

E R-1 A R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling U BUCKLEY AVE R-1 L 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size COUNTY B S R-1 COUNTY R 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit CITY R-1 A R-H Residential Holding CITY N C 20 acre min lot size H AAgriculture C 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size A

N A-20A Agriculture

L 20 acre min lot size PUD Planned Unit Development R-1 TT Travel Trailer Park C-2/P.C.D. R-1 R-1 MH Mobilehome C-O Professional and Administrative Office RADICCHIO C-1 Neighborhood Commercial AVE C-2 Regional Commercial R-1 C-C Commercial Center C-B Central Business

2 - FROM: R-1 PCD Planned Commercial Development R M-1 Light Manufacturing TO: R-2 M-2 General Manufacturing

2 - C-2 M-3 Heavy Industrial C P Automobile Parking RE Recreation E PANAMA LN E PANAMA LN Ch Church Overlay

A R-1 Y OS Open Space

A R-1

W HOSP Hospital Overlay

H DAGENHAM CT D KIRKL - EES CT AD Architectural Design Overlay

N C-2 G

C A U R-1

L FP-P Floodplain Primary O

R EL FUERTE R-1 U R-1 U FP-S Floodplain Secondary

R AVE B AA Airport Approach C-2 DERBYSHIRE DR HARTLEPOOL AVE DI Drilling Island

N PE Petroleum Extraction Combining

Y Y

T A SC Senior Citizen Overlay T F R-1 R-1 R-1 Y W

R-3 R-1 E R-1 N T

S HD Hillside Development Combining I A

R U

C D

WM- West Ming Specific Plan CALDERDALE DR O T ISLINGTON CT

C R R-1

HACKNEY K

R-1 V

C R-1

R WAY O

S A FLINTSHIRE DR WARWICKSHIRE AVE

C-2 D

R R-1

C M N R-1

T F

O A R-1

N R-1 L

N ARVIN-EDISON CANAL U ±

S Feet

R-1 S

NEW ZEALAND D 2 R

- E-1A A A S R-1

R S

I 0300600

A R-1 D V R-1

M Document Name: 2016_08_06_ZC Exhibit B DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PANAMA LANE AND FUTURE SPARKS STREET. (ZC NO. 16-0197).

WHEREAS, the applicant and/or property owner has indicated the purpose of the Project is for zoning for limited multi-family residential development; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and change to the zone district, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and the initial study and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

3. Public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project.

Page 1 of 2 4. The Project is compatible with the zone districts and development of surrounding properties, and is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject to the mitigation measures in the Negative Declaration and the Conditions of Approval shown in Exhibit B-1, and incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 located on the map as shown in Exhibit B-2 and as specifically described in Exhibit B-3, all of which are incorporated herein.

3. The Project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. ____ for the Negative Declaration for the Project.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED

______BARBARA LOMAS, CHAIR City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit B-1: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B-2: Location Map Exhibit B-3: Legal Description

By: jeng \ S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 PC RES ZC Exh B.docx

Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B-1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE 16-0197 PUBLIC WORKS

1. Along with the submittal of any development plan, prior to approval of improvement plans, or with the application for a lot line adjustment or parcel merger, the following shall occur (If a tentative subdivision map over the entire ZC area is submitted, than these conditions can be met with the map): a. Provide fully executed dedication for E. Panama Lane to arterial standards and Sparks Street to collector standards for the full frontage of the area within the Zone Change (ZC) request. Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current title report with the dedication documents. b. This ZC area has been approved as part of the approved Drainage Study for Tract 6865 and Tract 7029 per Drainage Study approval letter dated December 22, 2015. Any changes to the approved drainage study would be required to submit a revised drainage study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. c. Sewer service must be provided to the ZC area per the approved sewer study. The developer shall be responsible for the initial extension of the sewer line to serve the property. This ZC area has been approved for 140 multifamily units; per Sewer Capacity Letter for Tracts 7029 and 6865 dated December 29, 2015. Also per said letter “project will upsize the pumps per manufacturer’s recommendations and the last 60-70 feet of sewer pipe to the lift station from Madison Street will be upsized from 10” to 12” sewer pipe”. d. Developer is responsible for the construction of all infrastructure, both public and private, within the boundary of the ZC area. This includes the construction of any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street, unless otherwise specified. The developer is also responsible for the construction of any off site infrastructure required to support this development, as identified in these conditions. The phasing of the construction all infrastructure will be addressed at the subdivision map or site plan review stage.

2. The entire area covered by this ZC shall be included in the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, site plan review, or application for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this ZC area. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including the Proposition 218 ballot and the Covenant. The ballot and covenant shall be signed and notarized.

3. Payment of the proportionate share of the cost of the median for the arterial frontage of the property within the ZC request is required prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the ZC area.

4. Per Resolution 035-13, the area within the ZC shall implement and comply with the “complete streets” policy.

By elisheva /S:\ZoneChange\yr 2016\16-0197\PC Docs\16-0197 Exh B-1.docx Exhibit “B-1” Zone Change 16-0197 Page 2 of 3

5. The Panama Lane crossing of the Kern Island Central Branch Canal needs widening. Developer shall pay their proportionate share of the cost and shall aid in the formation of a Major Bridge and Thoroughfare District for the widening of the crossings prior to the recording of the first final map that includes the ZC area or prior to the approval of a site plan for the ZC area.

6. With the issuance of the first building permit within the ZC area the developer will be required to pay the Panama and Union Planned Sewer Area Fee. See Resolution 083-07(1) for per acre rate.

7. Those conditions approved by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract 7029 or any approved revision pertaining to the ZC area will be required with any development within the ZC area.

8. The development is required to pay into the adopted Regional Traffic Impact Fee fixed rate program.

CITY ATTORNEY

9. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

PLANNING

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall submit and obtain an approval of a substantial conformance review from the Planning Director for VTTM 7029. Orderly development.

Exhibit “B-1” Zone Change 16-0197 Page 3 of 3

11. Vesting rights associated with Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7029 are voided within zone change area of File No. 16-0197. Orderly development.

L R-1

LEGEND M-1 Y R-1 R-1 R-1 REL

R VE

O A M-2 A R-1 AR

G ZC F EXHIBIT B-2 (ZONE DISTRICTS) E FAIRVIEW RD R-1 R-1 One Family Dwelling C-1 R-1 C-2 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size 16-0197 R-1 R-1 R-1-4.5 One Family Dwelling CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size BURCHFIELD AVE BURCHFIELD AVE T EEstate

R-1 S 10,000 sq.ft. min lot size M-1 Y

S A R-1

W R-S Residential Suburban

24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit

ER ARK BOHANNAN AVE R-1

P R-S-( ) Residential Suburban

L L 1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot size

P MALIBAR AVE

P E

O N R-1 Y R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling

E R-1 K R R-1 STOVER S

R I

A E R T 4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)

G AVE T K K R-1 V R-1 S S 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily)

T N

O S 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit

N R-1

Y N

L C

N R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling L

D C-2 A

D N L R-1 E

C G O

O 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size N

I O

W T

W 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit

O R

L N

N A-20A Agriculture

2 - FROM: R-1 PCD Planned Commercial Development R M-1 Light Manufacturing TO: R-2 M-2 General Manufacturing

2 - C-2 M-3 Heavy Industrial C P Automobile Parking RE Recreation E PANAMA LN E PANAMA LN Ch Church Overlay

A R-1 Y OS Open Space

A R-1

W HOSP Hospital Overlay

H DAGENHAM CT D KIRKL - EES CT AD Architectural Design Overlay

N C-2 G

C A U R-1

L FP-P Floodplain Primary O

R EL FUERTE R-1 U R-1 U FP-S Floodplain Secondary

R AVE B AA Airport Approach C-2 DERBYSHIRE DR HARTLEPOOL AVE DI Drilling Island

N PE Petroleum Extraction Combining

Y Y

T A SC Senior Citizen Overlay T F R-1 R-1 R-1 Y W

R-3 R-1 E R-1 N T

S HD Hillside Development Combining I A

R U

C D

WM- West Ming Specific Plan CALDERDALE DR O T ISLINGTON CT

C R R-1

HACKNEY K

R-1 V

C R-1

R WAY O

S A FLINTSHIRE DR WARWICKSHIRE AVE

C-2 D

R R-1

C M N R-1

T F

O A R-1

N R-1 L

N ARVIN-EDISON CANAL U ±

S Feet

R-1 S

NEW ZEALAND D 2 R

- E-1A A A S R-1

R S 0300600

A R-1 DI V R-1

M Document Name: 2016_08_06_ZC EXHIBIT B-3

Exhibit C

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): Zone Change 16-0197

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: September 13, 2016

COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: October 5, 2016

MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Biological Impact Mitigation Measures

The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

2. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it

unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 – August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures

3. If during construction activities or ground disturbance, cultural resources are uncovered, the subdivider shall stop work and retain a qualified archeologist for further study. Subdivider shall notify the proper authorities and be subject to any mitigation measures required of the archeologist.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4. Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lot or parcel within this zone change area, the developer shall record an avigation easement for each the lot or parcel.

INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): Zone Change 16-0197

2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Jennie Eng, Principal Planner (661) 326 - 3043

4. Project Location: Located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and Sparks Street.

5. Applicant (name and address): East Panama LLC, 1224 Coast Village Circle Suite 11, Santa Barbara, CA 93108

6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low Density Residential)

7. Zoning: R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone

8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.): The project applicant I proposing a Zone Change on a 14.61 acre parcel from an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone to R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) zone.

9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): The zone change area is within the southern half of approved Tentative Tract Map 7029, approved for 129 single-family residential lots. The applicant proposes to develop 68 single- family lots on the northern half of Tentative Tract Map 7029, with one lot recorded to replace the remaining 61 single-family lots. This southern lot, currently an R-1 (one-family dwelling) zoning district, is proposed to be re-zoned to an R-2 (limited multi-family dwelling) zoning district. Within the proposed R-2 zoned area, the owner has planned 44 duplex lots, with a yield of 88 dwelling units. The difference between the 88 dwelling units and the previously approved 61 dwelling units is 27 dwelling units.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration approved March 8, 2006 for the previous zone change (Zone Change 05-1507) which included the current project area. Zone Change 05-1507 changed the zoning from A (Agricultural) zoning to R-1 zoning on 108-88 acres, and from A zoning to C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 1.56 acres. This negative declaration will examine the environmental impact of an additional 27 dwelling units to the Zone Change 05- 1507 project area.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

ZONE CHANGE 16-0197 LOCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):

□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality

□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils

□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality

□ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise

□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation

□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems

□ Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation: □ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.

x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.

□ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.

□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed name

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project; a) 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? □ □ □ x b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ x c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? □ □ □ x d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest? □ □ □ x e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ x

III. AIR QUALITY:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ x □ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? □ □ x □ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? □ □ x □ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ □ x e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ x IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ x □ □ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ x □ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ x □

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ x □ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ x □ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ x b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ x □ □ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ □ x □ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project; a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No.42) □ □ x □ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ x □ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ x □ iv. Landslides? □ □ x □ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ □ x c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? □ □ □ x d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city’s most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? □ □ □ x e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? □ □ □ x

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ □ x b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? □ □ □ x c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ x d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ x e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ x □ □ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ x g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ x

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? □ □ □ x

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project; a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? □ □ □ x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? □ □ x □ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ □ x d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? □ □ □ x e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? □ □ □ x f) Otherwise, substantially degrade water quality? □ □ □ x g) Place housing 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? □ □ □ x h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ x i) 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 levee or dam? □ □ □ x j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? □ □ □ x X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ x □ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels? □ □ □ x c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? □ □ x □ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? □ □ x □ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ x □ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ x

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project;

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ x □ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ x c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ x XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services;

i. Fire protection? □ □ □ x ii. Police protection? □ □ □ x iii. Schools? □ □ x □ iv. Parks? □ □ x □ v. Other public facilities? □ □ □ x XV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ x □ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ x

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project; a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? □ □ x □ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? □ □ x □ c) 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? □ □ □ x d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ x e) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ x f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? □ □ □ x

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? □ □ □ x b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ x c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ x d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? □ □ x □

Less Than Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ x f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? □ □ □ x g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ x

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ x □ □ b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ x □ c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □ x

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

I. AESTHETICS

c. Surrounding land uses include residential homes and agricultural fields. The development of residential homes on the project site would alter the existing landscape and provide development of additional 27 dwelling units which is considered compatible with the surrounding uses. The visual alterations will enhance the existing landscape and it is not considered to degrade the site compared to its existing condition. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No impact.

d. This project involves incremental growth of urban development within the City of Bakersfield’s (jurisdiction/ sphere of influence). Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime and will not produce substantial glare. City of Bakersfield development standards including Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 requires the project comply with current lighting, and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare trespass to neighboring properties. Less than significant impact.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES

a. The project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Rural Land Mapping Edition, Kern County Important Farmland 2010, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. As of December 31, 2009, there were approximately 1.70 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (The California Land Conservation Act, 2010, Status Report). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide significance. No impact.

b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, nor is there existing zoning for agricultural use. The project site has a land use designation of LR (Low Density Residential) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and zoned R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) by the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant is requesting approval of a zone change to an R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling) zoning district. The proposed R-2 zone is also consistent with the (existing or proposed) land use designation. Therefore, there are no impacts to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Land Use Contracts.

c. As discussed above, the project site(s) is/are currently zoned for residential development. No forestlands exist on the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause the rezoning of forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts on forestland would occur.

d. The project sites and surrounding properties do not contain any forest land. No impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use are expected to occur.

e. The proposed project involves the construction of houses on the project site. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of land zoned for agriculture to a nonagricultural use. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impact.

III. AIR QUALITY

b. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for three (3) specific criteria pollutants in regards to the operation of specific projects, as shown below:

SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants

Air Pollutant Tons/Year Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 10 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10 Particulates (PM10) 15

The proposed project would be in compliance with the significance thresholds for ROG (10 tons/year), NOx (10 tons/year), and PM10 (15 tons/year). Additionally, the project applicant intends to comply with the air emissions control measures described in the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts document to control dust and other emissions during construction. Under SJVAPCD CEQA rules, the implementation of these control measures would help reduce impacts from criteria air pollutants to a less than significant level. The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the City of

Bakersfield and are regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impacts to less than significant.

d. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The SJVAPCD defines sensitive receptors as locations where there is a risk of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors are located approximately ¼ mile away from the project site. However, the proposed project use will not expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure of any substantial pollutant concentrations. No impact.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively, and Incidental Take Permit 2081-2013-058-04 and associated Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said documents hereby incorporated by reference). Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading in areas of known dens. With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in the year 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2019 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2019 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2019 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The vegetative communities found within the project site are not considered sensitive, and provide little to no value for special-status wildlife species. The project has been sited to avoid

impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitat types. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to sensitive wildlife species or communities. The project would not interfere with movements of any wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Native resident and/or migratory fish and known native wildlife nursery sites are not present within the project site or area.

c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a significant impact on any wetlands. No impact.

d. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the MBHCP), or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. The record does not support a finding that the project area is a currently nursery site for native wildlife species. However, during the construction phase of the project, there is a potential for Burrowing owls, a migratory species, to utilize the project area as a project site. Should the pre-grading survey required by the MBHCP reveal the presence of Burrowing owls and their potential nesting sites, the developer will be required to avoid interference with nesting sites during the nesting season, and avoid take of the species at all times. With this mitigation measure, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

f. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources; see answer to IV.e. above.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

a. There are no structures on the site and no resources are listed in or have been deemed eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.). There are no resources on or near the project site that are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code. There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No impact.

b. A cultural resources survey (A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Residential Project at Panama Lane and South Union Avenue, City of Bakersfield, California, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, January 2005) was analyzed for the same area with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for ZC 16-0197 and found no cultural resources on the site. However the study recommended that should any cultural resources be unearthed during ground disturbance activities, the developer should contact a qualified archaeologist for further study. With this mitigation measure included for the current project, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

c. This project site is not located in northeast Bakersfield, the only known unique paleontological resource area within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Therefore, the potential exists for

significant paleontological resources to be disturbed during on-site construction activities. Pursuant to the mitigation measure contained in the Negative Declaration In the event any undetected (i.e., buried) cultural resources are encountered on the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find in conformance with CEQA Section 15064.5.) Topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No impact.

g. The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work shall stop until Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code is met. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. Less than significant impact.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

a.i. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.

a.ii. See answer to VI.a.i.

b. The soil types prevalent on the project site are listed in the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1988) [If south of Taft Hwy, will need to look at Southwestern Survey]. Based on the soil survey, the project site includes soil type Kimberlina fine sandy loam. The characteristics of the soil type Kimberlina fine sandy loam include that it is well drained soil with low run-off potential. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.

d. See answer to VI.b.

e. See answer to VI.b.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

a. 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. Although the proposed Project is expected to emit greenhouse gases, the emission of greenhouse gases by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of greenhouse gas from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s greenhouse gas emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the potential impacts from the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant.

Global climate change is an issue where the causes and effects are not just regional or statewide, but worldwide. The impacts of this project are not considered significant given the efforts made to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. Regulation and policy that will result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in new residential and commercial developments include but are not limited to Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element as well as SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines and Rules. With local, regional and state regulation and other air quality regulation implemented, impacts will remain below a level of significance.

b. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. According to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, there must be a statewide reduction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 16 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020 (baseline: 2002-2004 average emissions). In addition, per SB375 requirements, CARB has adopted regional reduction targets; they call for a 5 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2020 and 10 percent reduction in 2035 within the San Joaquin Valley, using 2005 as the baseline. These regional reduction targets will be a part of the Kern COG Sustainable Communities Strategy. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the guidance: Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy: District Policy – Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. As proposed, the project will not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB32 and SB375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. The project achieves “business-as-usual” GHG emissions reduction equal to or greater than the 16% targeted reduction goal CARB defines “business-as-usual” as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.” The proposed project is consistent with these statewide measures and considered not significant or cumulatively considerable under CEQA.

The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a greenhouse gas Climate Action Plan but is in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan as part of its general plan update. This project will not conflict with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and local ordinances. This project will not conflict with City policy for addressing GHG impacts nor with any other applicable plans, policies or regulations. As such, impacts from GHG emissions are considered less than significant.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

b. See answer to VIII.a.

d. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact.

e. This project is located within an area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which covers all of Kern County. The area has an Airport Land Use Zone C designation, which requires a dedication of overflight easement for residential uses. With this mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

b. The proposed development of an additional 27 residential units to what had been previously approved for the project site will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Nor would the additional 27 residential units interfere with the groundwater recharge of the aquifer, therefore the impact to groundwater supplies would be considered less than significant. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The

appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is less than significant.

d. See answer to IX.c.

e. See answer to IX.c.

f. See answer IX.a.

g. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No impact.

h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact.

i. The project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area, but not the 100-year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan (Safety Element). However, chances of loss, injury and/or death are so remote (the worst case scenario is one event in more than 10,000 years - source: Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). Less than significant impact.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

TABLE 1

LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES

LAND USE LOCATION ZONE DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION

Vacant, approved VTTM NORTH LR R-1 7029 Agricultural, approved SOUTH LR R-1 VTTM 7029

EAST LR R-1 Agricultural

Vacant, approved VTTM WEST LR R-1 7029 (under construction)

c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f. With mitigation in place, less than significant.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

a) The project is not located within a California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. Accordingly, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, or the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact.

b. See answer to XI.a.

XII. NOISE

b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground borne vibration or noise. No impact.

d. Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels are less than significant.

e. This project is located within an area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (KCALUCP) which covers all of Kern County because it is located south of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. The area has an Airport Land Use Zone C designation, which notes that there could be frequent noise intrusion for facilities within Zone C. However, in a more recent study of airport land use and noise done in 2006 (Preliminary Evaluation of ALUC Safety Zones, Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates, Airport Planning Consultants, March 22, 2006, associated with GPA 06-2202) the study determined that the acceptable noise levels occur in the project area, although an occasional single noise would be heard in the project area, but in acceptable State and Federal Aviation Agency noise levels. Less than significant impact.

f. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but the increase of 27 dwelling units’ impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2. Less than significant impact.

TABLE 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS PROPOSED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNITS POPULATION LAND USE HOUSEHOLD

Multiple-Family 27 du 3.07 83

TOTALS 27 du

Source: 2010 Federal Census

b. The project would not displace any existing housing. The project site is currently vacant land. No significant impacts are noted.

c. The project would not result in the displacement of any persons. See answer to XIII.b. above. No significant impacts are noted.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The projected increase of 83 new residents and 27 new structures into the City. Though the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. No impact.

b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.09 officers for every 1,000 people in the City. The projected increase of 83 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of 0.09 law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Less than significant impact.

c. The proposed development could produce 22 dwellings units and generate approximately 15 school age children as indicated in Table 3. This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant.

TABLE 3 SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION TYPE AND NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL PUPILS DWELLING K - 8 9 - 12 UNITS Duplex b x 0.39=11 b x 0.14=4 15 (b=27) units Source: 2000 Federal Census; Student Generation Rates - 2003 Kern County Office of Education [CG – collecting updated information, will provide soon]

d. The project proposes a population increase of 83 and may result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Total park acreage estimated for the project is 0.21 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. The impact is less than significant.

XV. RECREATION

a. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.).

b. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.).

XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

a. Because of the small number of additional dwelling units associated with this zone change (27) a trip generation analysis has not been prepared for the project. The project may cause a slight increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. However, the impact is not considered significant because the proposal would not degrade the existing Level of Service (LOS) of adjacent and area roads. Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of Bakersfield to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. These measures would be implemented at the time the project site is developed. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development would be addressed according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all on-site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed. Less than significant impact.

b. See answer to XVI.a.

c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No impact.

e. The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency’s ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No impact.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a. This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact.

c. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. No impact.

e. The City of Bakersfield is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No impact.

f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No impact.

g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVII.f. No impact.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

b. The proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing to change the zoning district from single family residential zone to a limited multi-family residential zone, which could potentially increase the dwelling units by 27. Less than significant impact.

c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. No impact.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST 1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222- 02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003

4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991

5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994 & 2014

6. Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern

7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code

8. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code

9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000

10. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002 as updated

11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by : David Taussig & Associates

12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures

13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan

14. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan

15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey

16. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996, as amended on August 29, 2007.

17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella.

18. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).

19. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.

20. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

21. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Residential Project at Panama Lane and South Union Avenue, City of Bakersfield, California, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, January 2005 22. Preliminary Evaluation of ALUC Safety Zones, Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates, Airport Planning Consultants, March 22, 2006 23. Water Will Serve letter for Tract 7029, dated September 6, 2016, California Water Service