Kingston tract offers land, not homes
The City of Bishop has addressed some of the public’s concern about the proposed Kingston tract, a land subdivision at the Bishop Nursery site, in the Revised Draft Environmental Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. Local proponents of the project are hopeful the new tract will bring much needed housing to the area, but there aren’t any new homes proposed. The tract is a subdivision of land with lots available that potential owners can build on as they see fit, within the limits of municipal code and regulation.
Opponents claim the site is contaminated, and that the project could create traffic problems or disturb area wildlife and plants.
One of a team of five volunteer leaders for the Economic Development Element of the city’s General Plan, Julie Faber said that there is no perfect place for development in land-locked Bishop, but the bottom line is there is a need for housing. The land is one of the last lots in the city limits that can be developed.
City Planning Director Gary Schley said Kingston has talked about selling homes on the land, but the proposal is for a subdivision of land, nothing more, not a design review.
Faber explained that part of the city’s Economic Development Element, goal 4.6, is to “Support development of modern housing products to attract a diverse and educated workforce.”
The hope is that with more homes, professionals and administrators will be able to move into a new home, opening up the home they were renting or owning. That empty home becomes open for rent or even for sale and at an obtainable price for people lower on the economic ladder. This is the opposite effect of what could happen in Mammoth, as higher end homes are being used as nightly rentals and are unaffordable to management types, forcing many to downgrade, which in turn leaves little at the bottom.
The City held a public hearing on the Kingston tract on Aug. 10 and received 34 comments. At the hearing, the public raised concerns about soil contamination after years of spillage from the nursery-—torn bags of fertilizer spilling out onto the ground, diesel fuel and other petroleum products staining the soil.
Some of the public concerns were addressed in the revised declaration. There could be “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated,” such as diverting surface water into storm drains and away from the creek.
But the development could be tough on the creatures that call the nursery site home. The project would mean grading the lot, removing some vegetation, and increased human activity and lights in an area that, historically, has been quiet and dark at night. Additional trees, four new for every one removed, and a six-foot high fence are proposed for the southerly boundary of the project to keep lights from the new homes from bothering the neighbors.
The project calls for the removal of at least 30 of the 85 mature trees on the property, most the invasive black locust. For each tree removed, four will be planted as replacements.
There are no private wells proposed, as the City has confirmed there’s enough water from its resources to supply the new tract without impact.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board stated in a report that the Bishop Nursery site poses little threat to water quality. Diesel and other petroleum-based products were detected in the soil samples taken just beneath the surface, although they were less concentrated deeper down at the one-foot depth. No herbicides or pesticides were detected in water samples from the South Fork of Bishop Creek.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) conducted an Environmental Site Assessment of its property leased to Bob Kingston in 2010. Of the seven sample holes dug to a depth of 10 feet, water was found at eight feet. There were no petroleum products, herbicides or pesticides detected in the soil and water samples.
The site was visited again on August 19 by representatives from Lahontan, Inyo Environmental Health Services, LADWP, Liz Merrill, manager of the nursery and nursery neighbors and concerned citizens, Terry Tye and Stanley Wooden. The group took a look at the grounds, then performed an impromptu investigation of Tye’s allegations that the studies by LADWP did not address some areas of concern. One area was a blackened area where buckets full of waste oil and other petroleum-based products had been stored in bins without lids and the contents have spilt out onto the ground. There was “soil staining” of an 8-foot square area that smelled like petroleum, according to the report. It was determined that the stained areas flow to the north, away from the creek and “do not appear to pose a significant threat.”
The nursey cleaned up the two sites as ordered by Lahontan, removing and disposing of the soil. A barely detectable amount of diesel was found in the soil from the two sites, but concentrations were larger near the surface, a tell-tale sign that the contaminants did not seep further down into the water supply.
Tye argues that the soil has not been removed, only a small portion, and that there is still 9,000 to 12,000 pounds of soil left to remove. Schley said the soil has been excavated and is sitting on tarps on site. He added that it is not easy to dispose of contaminated soil and Kingston is still waiting.
Public comments on the revision are due December 14 with a public hearing set for January 11, 2016.
