Lebec, CA (Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2016 at 8 a.m.)—On Thursday, Sept. 8 at 7 p.m. the Kern County Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing about the Tejon Ranchcorp’s proposed Grapevine development, to be located between the Outlets at Tejon mall and the Grapevine exit on both sides of the Interstate 5 freeway. On Wednesday, Sept. 7 The Mountain Enterprise received a mailed letter informing us that this hearing has been postponed until October 27.
The TriCounty Watchdogs have submitted this statement about the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed Grapevine development. We recommend that Mountain Community residents read over these comments—rushed because the planning department refused to extend the time for public comment. Perhaps they will provide greater insight to the public about potential concerns for our region.
Page 1
TriCounty Watchdogs**
PO Box 6407 Frazier Park, CA 93222
July 13, 2017
Ross Fehrman, Planner
Kern County Planning and Community Development
We begin our comments on the Grapevine Project DEIR by requesting a thirty-day extension. There are at least a thousand pages of appendices! Since we have not been given enough time to read all of the 2000 plus pages, which might have answered some of our questions or provoked even more questions, our comments are necessarily incomplete. Such a major project deserves maximum community input, and we therefore urge the Planning Department and BOS to extend the comment period to August 14. [That did not happen—Editor ]
In commenting on our questions, please do not simply refer us to the appropriate section. You may assume we’ve read the section and it was not clear to us. We ask you to amplify the item in common language.
The needs of current residents and commercial enterprises must come ahead of profits for out-of-state investors like the east-coast consortium that owns Tejon Ranchcorp.
This project is a classic example of urban sprawl. It is 21 miles south of Bakersfield’s southern border near Panama Lane to the northern border of the Project. Except for Tejon’s small industrial park and commercial center around Laval road, that 21 mile stretch is rural farmland. There is no existing town or city development in any other direction for many more miles. This Project is positioned where it is to benefit the owner of the property and the developers, not society as a whole nor the natural environment. It will greatly contribute to air pollution, traffic congestion, infrastructure needs, visual pollution, and many other problems. If there is a future need for increase in housing in southern San Joaquin Valley, that can be met in many other far less destructive fashions. The development caps are hardly reassuring.
Although Alternative A (no project) is desirable, Alternative B limits destructive impacts, which would still be “cumulatively significant and unavoidable.” The development, at whatever limit, would forever alter the aesthetics of the area “creating a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.”
Alternative B permits Phase 1 only with 2200 housing units. Even so, it “conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances and policies and contributes to the cumulative exceedance of LOS standards.” In other words, it’s bad but not awful. The DEIR itself states that Alternative B is “considered the environmentally superior alternative” to no project at all.
Page 2
Nonetheless, growth once again appears to be the overriding concern for this project. The DEIR states there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project location based upon “population projections, market studies and other indicators.”
a. Where are these predictions and market studies available for the public to examine and come to their own conclusions?
b. What other “indicators” are there for the public to examine and how are they judged to be credible?
1. Housing
The rationale for the development and the overriding concern to “significant and unavoidable adverse effects” of the development is to provide housing and retail opportunities for the nearby Tejon Ranch Commercial Center. Currently there are 3500 workers at the outlet stores and allied businesses in the project area who presumably are living at some distance from their workplace. There is no guarantee that workforce will remain static and even increase.
a. What is to say that these workers will want to live in an outlying area, distant from big city attractions, family and friends? Please provide data on which this need has been established.
b. The public wonders how the majority of employees who will be paid minimum wage or near minimum wage will be able to afford this proximate house. What is the projected cost of a two-bedroom apartment, for example? Or the range of estimated costs of homes being constructed?
c. How many of these apartments and housing units will be available in Phase 1?
d. Will high density apartments be built first or will new homes be constructed in Phase I? Will building of both be concurrent?
e. Will TRCC and Grapevine employees be given first choice of any new housing units constructed during Phase I?
f. If there is a demand for such housing, how will choice rental units be allocated?
g. How has it been determined that residents of the community will want to shop at local alternatives, especially in Phase I. Please provide supporting data.
Page 3
h. The DEIR states a grocery store is a permitted use. What is the developer doing to attract a major grocery chain which residents of existing communities have expressed a need for many, many times? Please provide names of grocery chains the developer is in negotiation with and the status of those negotiations (within reason.)
2. Casino Unknowns:
This size of this project creates a leapfrog development of unneeded housing and retail opportunity for developers which will negatively affect many forms of infrastructure, the burden falling on citizen taxation and public frustration.
a. The impact of the Tejon Indian Tribe casino near Mettler, which the public knows is coming, is only briefly mentioned. While the casino will be sited on sovereign land, it still has its own needs for water and the creation of water infrastructure. How will they be provided? Water is a finite resource.
b. The timeline for the casino project is unknown but most likely stretches into a distant future. How does this DEIR take into consideration these unknowns?
c. The casino will also create further traffic woes, require its own infrastructure, and negatively impact air quality which could rival that of Beijing and New Delhi.
d. Since the casino will be on sovereign land, the public will have no say whatsoever in the administration and business operation of the casino property. The question arises whether the casino management (and its likely partner Tejon Ranchcorp) will provide its own fire- fighting capability and contribute to law enforcement costs beyond the casino property.
3. Governance
The project governance proposed is Community Facilities District (CFD) under the Mello- Roos act. In structuring a new community as a CFD, the advantage goes entirely to the developer. New homeowners will find themselves paying for the schools or other public infrastructure such as public parks and roads as an alternative to (or in addition to) impact fees paid directly by real estate developers. Tri-County Watchdogs notes that the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt.
a. The financing of this project is obscure. Please specify what infrastructure such as parks, roads and schools and wastewater treatment fall under the auspices of the CFD.
Page 4
c. In forming the CFD, in what manner will local residents be allowed to participate? Please specify. If a board of directors is established, how many locals will be allowed to serve?
d. Will the directors be appointed by the developer?
e. Or elected, and by whom?
4. Schools
Approximately 157 acres would be set aside for schools (including one high school and five K-8 schools).
a. Please explain what portion of building schools and busing students from outlying areas the developer is obligated to pay, what portion falls on home buyers, and what portion the public pays in Phase I.
b. Will any of these schools be built in Phase I? How many students must be willing to enroll before a school will be built? More and more students in this area opt for home schooling. How has that enrollment been forecast with even minimum certainty?
c. Until the minimum enrollment of students has been established, will the developer contribute to the costs of busing students to existing schools? And how much?
5. Parks and Recreation
Questions similar to 4. Schools arise.
a. Please explain what portion of building parks and recreation facilities the developer is obligated to pay, what portion falls on home buyers, and what portion the public pays in Phase I.
b. Will any of these parks be built in Phase I? At what point? How many housing units including apartments and single-family homes need to be built to trigger the building of parks?
c. How would parks be maintained?
d. Which, if any, parks would be established in Phase I depending on which parcels are developed first?
e. What governmental oversight monitors park maintenance and enforcement of regulations?
Page 5
f. Public services 4.14 page 19
19 miles of existing unpaved ranch roads that would be utilized for class 1 hiking/biking trails. Would this not be a concern for the farmers and ranchers? Have easements been guaranteed? Please specify.
6. Public Services
The promise of the developer is to create new jobs and provide new tax revenues for the Kern County economy while minimizing demands on County services.
Yet the adverse impact on provision of public services for existing residents and tax payers is listed 4.14-4.14-7, all of which are negative: cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
Other public facilities, including fire stations, a sheriff’s substation, transit facilities/park-and-rides, and water and wastewater treatment facilities, are proposed.
a. Please explain what portion of fire stations, a sheriff’s substation, transit facilities/park-and-rides, and water and wastewater treatment facilities, the developer is obligated to pay, what portion falls on home buyers, and what portion the public pays in Phase I. Specifically, as this relates to the operation of a CFD.
b. Does the county or the state have the funds set aside to pay for its obligations regarding these facilities? No one knows whether projected tax revenues will come close to subsidizing these costs. Please provide analysis of costs vs. revenues.
c. How will demands for County services be minimized when the majority of new employees will be paid at minimum, or near minimum wage? Please explain.
d. The developer promises no creation of medical services of any kind, placing an undue burden on existing providers, particularly emergency services.
Market forces will direct where and how the developer will proceed in Phase I. It is probable that a VMU with retail stores and apartment complexes paying rents will dictate where construction begins to compensate for TRC costs
e. Will the wastewater treatment facility be set in place to serve the needs of incoming commercial interests and residents?
f. What about storm water drainage? Flooding is identified in the DEIR as a potential hazard.
g. Impact 3.9-5. The DEIR provides an inadequate analysis of the mitigation measures for runoff water and storm water drainage. With climate change violent storms alternating with drought may well be our future.
Page 6
7. Fire
a. The County is stretched to capacity in suppressing fires that occur along the I-5 through the project area at present. How does KCFD propose to meet future needs at a time of declining tax revenues?
b. Will tax revenues due in Phase I be adequate to build fire stations and adequately equip a new facility? Until 1500 residential building permits have been issued, the developer has no obligation to construct a fire station to serve the project. This could take a long time. Is the county to provide services until that time?
c. The developer has made promises to provide the station with specific equipment. Does KCFD consider this level of equipment adequate? Where is that assurance?
8. Law Enforcement Services
If there are fewer than 1,000 residents, the Kern County Sheriff’s Department will be housed at Tejon Ranch Corporation headquarters, miles distant from the development.
a. The public is aware that the KCSO has listed the Frazier Park substation for closing. How would law enforcement be conducted in the project area? Is the county capable of filling increased needs at a time when existing services are being cut until there are 1000 residents? Will Tejon Ranch Corporation subsidize this cost? And how?
b. Does KCSD consider this adequate? Are there support letters for the project available for public viewing?
9. Traffic and Transportation
Current tax payers would like to see the comments of the County Congestion Management Agency on this DEIR. They have not been provided in this document and would be an informed guide as to experts in this area—and for the public to make its own judgments. Please provide their analysis for review.
a. We would concur with the concerns raised by the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) about increases in traffic. All surrounding County roads and State highways, including access ramps, are currently overburdened and unable to
handle the proposed increase in vehicle traffic in a safe and efficient manner.
Conditions are exacerbated when accidents, fires, and mudslides occur. The proposed location of the new on and off ramps would place traffic in direct conflict with commercial vehicles leaving the Grapevine Enforcement Facility. Proposed mitigation measures are inadequate. Please address.
P
age 7
b. There would be potential conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to level of service (LOS, for roads) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highway.
Specifically, would implementation of the project cause the LOS for roadways and/or intersections in Bakersfield to decline below the Metropolitan Bakersfield thresholds in the general plan of LOS C, or further degrade already degraded segments? (Executive summary 1.0 p. 21)
c. The California highway patrol (CHP) raises concerns that the project would cause major increases in traffic and notes that all surrounding county roads and state highways including access ramps are currently insufficient to handle the proposed increase in vehicle traffic in a safe and efficient manner.
The CHP is further concerned that the purposed location of the new on and off ramp would place traffic in direct conflict with commercial vehicles leaving the Grapevine enforcement facility. The CHP notes the extreme geography and climate of southern Kern County and its potential adverse effect on the additional traffic generated by the project (we refer to the letter dated April 29, 2014 from Department of California highway patrol, Introduction pp 2-7).
Kern County Development Services agency Roads Department memorandum dated April 30, 2014 requests a stamped and signed traffic impact study for review and comment prior to development of the final EIR. The department further requests that the California department of transportation be contacted regarding impacts to state highways. (Introduction 2.0, page 2-10). Has such contact been made, and what are the results?
d. Winter weather closes the I-5 on many occasions causing miles-long traffic tie ups. A development of 12-14,000 new residents could only create further commercial and residential interruptions to the smooth flow of traffic. We consider the LOS to be unacceptable.
e. Mudslides in the Grapevine pass have become an increasing problem tying up traffic. This increases the burden placed on existing resources and it is costly to remedy. Since these mudslides occur on Tejon Ranch land primarily, what obligation does the developer have to clean up these mudslides to smooth the flow of traffic?
f. Will the development be marketed to draw visitors off the I-5 to retail shopping opportunities which benefit the developer and to use the parks? Specifically how?
g. Who pays the costs of the establishment and maintenance of the new Transportation Management Association?
Page 8
10. Water
As the DEIR acknowledges, California is still experiencing what may be o the most severe drought in the state’s recorded history. The DEIR also acknowledges the dire state of the San Joaquin Valley in particular, and forthrightly states that “Currently available and projected water supplies are insufficient to meet regional demand in dry and multiple dry years from 2015-2035. The regional water supply deficit may continue under certain hydrological conditions after 2035” (Alternatives, p. 6-7).
More specifically, in “Utilities and Service Systems,” (Impacts, Water p.4.17.57), the DEIR states: If TCWD is required to obtain new water supplies under these potential future conditions, it is possible that the project could contribute to a cumulative regional water supply impact. Because there are no current water supply impacts, including groundwater overdraft condition, and because jurisdiction and control of regional and groundwater resources falls within the jurisdiction and control of multiple state and local agencies as well as the federal government, this cumulative groundwater condition is considered significant.”
Neither politicians nor the developer can guarantee when this drought will end. Would it not be prudent to delay the construction of new communities until a future technology can grapple with the problem of finite water resources?
It is stated definitively that Nickel Family Ranch water will be sufficient to supply the project.
The Nickel Family Ranch water contract must be renewed in 2044, a one-time renewal of 35 years. Cost is apparently not set for this renewal, and it could be prohibitive for existing commercial entities and homeowners.
Please tell us if there is any limit on the charges that DMB Pacific LLC or the Nickel Family LLC could make for the Nickel Water when the contract with Tejon Ranchcorp is up for renewal.
After 2079, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the water will be there for residents or commercial enterprises. There is no other ready source of water. Why should the Kern County Board of Supervisors care when we’ll all be dead? Our grandchildren will care. Future residents will shake their heads and wonder what on earth we were thinking and why nobody said “no” to such a development.
Furthermore, the total water demand for the project is projected to be 8261 Acre Feet per Year (AFY). It does not mention ( Appendix Q: Water Supply Assessment n page12) a projection for water to fight fires.
Water to fight fires could be very significant. How does the developer propose to meet unknown demands for fire suppression, especially since fire season is now extended year round, fire fighters are frequently exhausted, and water demands exceed supply. Where is the water for suppressing fires guaranteed to come from?
Please provide KCFD forecasts for the amount needed.
Please justify how the amount can be forecast in such uncertain times. How does climate change enter this calculation, if at all?
Page 9
We repeat, quoting now from the Impact section of the DEIR, (4.9-2,1-24) that the project will “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.” In short, there will be less water for current residents and commercial enterprises so that the developer will profit from what is no doubt seen as “empty land.”
In addition, we have the following questions:
1.How is State Bill 88 going to affect water supply to the project?
2.Tejon-Castac Water District (TCWD) is one of thirteen member units of the Kern County Water Authority (KCWA) that has contractual rights to State Water Project (SWP) water through the agency. That includes twenty-nine primary contractors including KCWA. TCWD has a contract right to receive 5,278 AFY of SWP. Has the project taken into consideration a concern about the future depletion of these other agencies’ waters from the State Water Project?
3. How is the project going to separate potable and non-potable water systems to recycle?
4. Why would the developers want to use state water project water if they have all of Nickels-SWP and upper and lower Kern River Supplies? Please justify.
5. If they have plenty of water with the Nickels and the SWP of the KCWA, why are they acquiring all of Kern County’s Water Supply, Water Banking Rights, recycled water supplies, waste water supplies, storm water drainage supplies and the Federal Water supplies and the San Joaquin Valley Ground Water, and the White Wolf Sub-basin?
6. We note that In 2014 California enacted Sustainable Ground Water Management Act. The related amendment to California law requires that all ground water basins designated as high and medium receive priority in the DWR and California Statewide Ground Water Elevation Monitoring Program. All these basins are subject to critical over-draft and must be managed under new ground water sustainability plans. TCWD has extracted White Sub-basin ground water from a well located east of Interstate-5 near TRCC wells In this location have the capacity to produce approximately 1,500 gallons per minute or 2420 AFY. TRC is continuing to identify ground water sources in the San Joaquin Valley. TRC-TCWD has existing rights under California law to extract local ground water.
7. How will the Sustainable Ground Water Management Act affect TCWD’s ability to supply water other than from the Nickel water?
8. Are the developers considered entitled to use all of the Sierra Nevada Mountain sources for its project when Southern California needs the Sierra Nevada range for water needs?
Page 10
9. Can the district meet the ability to anticipate demands in accordance with water code?
10. Does the Nickel Water Supply have metering devices to access the amount and quality of water? The total water demand is project to be 8261 AFY. It does not mention (on page 12 in Appendix Q Water Supply assessment) a projection for water to fight fires. That could be very significant.
11. How does the developer propose to meet unknown demands for fire suppression, especially since fire season is now extended with water demands exceeding supply.
Where is the water for suppressing fires guaranteed to come from?
9. The Water Supply Analysis (WSA) does not take fully take into account the amount of water that will be needed for fire suppression. Please provide KCFD forecasts for the amount needed.
Please justify how the amount can be forecast in such uncertain times.
9. Aesthetics
The stretch of I-5 between the California aqueduct near Ikea Warehouse and the foothills south of the grapevine exit offers commuters one of the last glimpses of the natural Great Valley of California still in existence. The frequent use of this area by filmmakers attests to its unique aesthetic value. The scenic inspiration will be forever lost with the implementation of this Project.
a. Aesthetics Visual impacts 4.1. There is no mention of views from Lebec and Frazier Park, Ca, only Tejon Mountain Village. The light and glare form this project would also be seen from this two cities as well. It would change our view of the sky significantly. (visual impacts 4.1 Pages 19-23)e
b. What provisions have been made to mitigate this glare?
12. Biological Resources
a. Bioregion connectivity:
This project, as proposed, will ‘put the last nail in the coffin’ in terms of forever disconnecting the grasslands at the base of the Sierra Nevada from the grasslands at the base of California’s Coast Range. Genetic flow among populations of many species will
Page 11
be irreparably lost. That genetic flow connectivity has already been compromised by farmlands, Interstate-5 and the California Aqueduct. However, those disruptions are reversible. As an example, at present, plans are being made to reconnect the Santa Monica Mountains to the hills and mountains to the north by constructing a wildlife and native plant corridor over Highway 101. This Grapevine Project, however, will present an insurmountable obstacle. The Final Environmental Impact Report should adequately address this exceedingly important issue.
If this Project proceeds in one form or another, it should include, with the involvement of government agencies, permanent and effective routes for wildlife passage and plant life genetic flow through this region, the last hope to retain bioregion connectivity at the southern end of the Great Valley of California.
b. Ineffective and Inadequate Biological Surveys:
The biological field surveys, executed by Dudek, were competently designed and carried out in accordance with state and federal guidelines, by competent biologists. However, all these surveys were performed during the time period of 2013 through 2015. This time period was right in the midst of the major multi-year drought to strike southern and central California. This has been one of the most severe droughts in recorded history for this region. There have been no observable carpets of native lupine during this past drought period.
Since the biological field surveys conducted for the Project reflect extreme drought conditions, they must be augmented by comparable surveys done during more representative conditions. The drought-conducted surveys have undoubtedly underestimated the biological resources of this area. How will this be rectified?
c. Dismissal of non-native grasslands:
The native perennial bunch grass species (such as Nassella spp.) that dominated the grasslands of California’s valleys and foothills before the European invasion were soon replaced by introduced annual non-native grasses because of the effects of bovine and bovine ranching practices. The vast majority of the forbs and fauna of these regions have continued to occupy these grasslands with various success.
By dismissing this major life zone of California as non-native grasslands, the DEIR for this proposed Project greatly undervalues this portion of the ecosystem. Many of the plants and animals of concern are found in this ecosystem.
The EIR must reevaluate the inadequate analysis of biological resources for this Project giving this grassland the same attention and value as other ecosystems.
Page 12
13. AIR
Air is a huge topic that merits a long discussion that we do not have time to write within the short comment period. Let is suffice to say for now that the DEIR projects significant and unavoidable effects in air quality on the region if any part of the project is built.
We are sure that you already know that in 2007 rural Arvin was declared the smoggiest city in the United States. Its location in a valley bordered on two sides by mountains and near freeways and polluting industries is the culprit. Developing the rest of valley will exacerbate Arvin’s problem and expose new residents to ever more sickening air.
1) As stated in the Plan, there will be significant and unavoidable air quality impacts of the project. These include:
Impact 4.3-2 Violation of any existing air quality standards as adopted in c(i) or c(ii) or as established by EPA or Air District or contribute substantially to an existing or projected Air Quality Violation);
Impact 4.3-3 Resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region Is Nonattainment under Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standards;
Impact 4.3-5 The creation of Objectionable Odors, affecting a substantial number of people.
2) Therefore, the County of Kern would be in violation of the Air Quality standards indicated in Comment 1) and would contribute to the already-existing violations and nonattainments. Please explain how this violation can be dismissed.
3) One of the Project Objectives is to “Create a community that encourages healthy living through active lifestyles and access to local agricultural products”. The ‘healthy living through active lifestyles’ section of this Objective is directly contradicted by the three Air Quality Impacts listed in Comment1). Not only will the Project decrease air quality, but will cause physical activity by its residents to be compromised by the exposure to increasingly unhealthy air. Please explain how this is justified.
4) The Project will contribute to the already severely compromised air quality of surrounding Kern County communities. As an example, Tejon Middle School is located five miles south of the Project next to I-5 freeway along the Grapevine Canyon corridor. Studies exist that indicate that pollution is already detrimental to the health and welfare of the children and adults at this school. The Project as proposed will exacerbate the already unhealthy air quality at this public educational facility.
Page 13
14. Valley Fever
Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) spores live in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil in many parts of the state including parts of Kern County and are an acknowledged public health hazard. Construction activity can cause the spores to become airborne, thereby increasing the risk of Valley Fever exposure. All workers on sites where the fungus is present and who are exposed to dusty conditions and wind blown dusts are at increased risk of becoming infected.
a. Mitigation measures, largely education and dust control measures are proposed. Do public health experts consider these measures adequate? Please comment.
b. Dust abatement consists of “standards for the industry,” which is currently watering down the environment to control the dust. The only problem with this is that the Coccidioidomycosis thrives on moisture and then dry heat. So as they try to control the dust it only helps the spores grow.
c. Is this considered adequate to protect surrounding residents? Please justify.
We are not planners or developers, just people concerned for the quality of life where we live. If we are asking unanswerable or naïve questions, we ask to be educated and informed. Overall, we only see that this development makes our lives harder, our commutes more uncertain and longer, our lives more threatened with fire and seeing water drained away from all of us.
We benefit as residents of the Greater Frazier Mountain community in only minute ways: a few construction jobs, more minimum wage jobs in the future with a long commute. What benefits there are flow to the developer and the county seat, again at some distance from us.
Thank you for allowing us to comment. We look forward to your responses to our concerns.
For the Tri-County Watchdogs
Terry Kelling, President
Mar Preston, Vice-President
Katherine King, Secretary
**Tri-County Watchdogs is a local grassroots organization based in the Frazier Park area, whose mission is to protect natural and cultural resources, to promote ecotourism and foster responsible growth in the local Mountain Communities. We formed to respond to concerns about our water supply, air quality, our cultural and historical heritage, economic opportunities, and the neglect of our area by the counties and state.
This is part of the September 2, 2016 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.
Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.
