S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 1 of 34
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield ’s Development Services Department, Planning Division , 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): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 30, 2024
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: January 28, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
2. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Division that they have complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
3. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plan t and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project related activity.
a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization.
b. If Bakersfield cact i are identified during the survey, the CDFW shall be contacted for guidance concerning the feasibility of translocation.
c. The survey or separate survey shall include a focus on the burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). The applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 2 of 34
Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures:
4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
5. During construction, if paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological resource sp ecialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.
6. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.
Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant/developer shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 3 of 34
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3191
4. Project Location: The project is located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street on approximately 2.63 acres, [Assessor Parcel Numbers 514-060-27] Bakersfield, CA 93314
5. Applicant (name and address): LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering Attn: Scott Quintana
13061 Rosedale Highway, Suite G199
Bakersfield, CA 93312
6. General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial), and SR (Suburban Residential)
7. Zoning: C-2 (Regional Commercial), and A (Agricultural)
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.):
LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering (applicant), on behalf of Fred Giminiani 2008 Living Trust (property owner), has requested a General Plan Amendment to amend the existing land use designation from (GC) General Commercial and (SR) Suburban Residential to (GC) General Commercial only; and a Zone Change to change the existing zoning from (C-2) Regional Commercial and (A) Agricultural to (C- 2) Regional Commercial on approximately 2.63 acres [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 514-060-27]. The project at this time is for plan consistency bring ing the general plan land use designation and zoning to be consistent with adjacent parcels as there are no current plans to develop the project site. All future development will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance, at that time.
9. Environmental Setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The proposed project site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The areas to the south and east of the site mainly consist of commercial properties, while the parcel to the north is vacant undeveloped land.
To the west is one single family residence. The adjacent parcels to the north and west of the project site are located within Kern County jurisdiction.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 4 of 34
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services Department
Public Works Department
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance.
California Water Service Bakersfield
District
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 5 of 34
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 6 of 34
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 7 of 34
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 8 of 34
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.
■ 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 m itigation 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.
Yazid Alawgarey 12/30/24
Signature Date
Yazid Alawgarey
Printed Name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 9 of 34
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 ad equately 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 10 of 34
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located at the edge of City limits on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street . The existing visual environment in the area consists of commercial to the north and east and industrial properties to the south . The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements , or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies . The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction . The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of commercial uses at the site would be in character and compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity and is a nat ural extension of the commercial growth occurring in the project area.
Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are several trees, but no rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site. Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017) , located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described , the project is located within a commercial area and is contiguous to existing and newly developed land uses.
There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that apply to the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 11 of 34
and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas , and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental commercial growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. The refore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
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?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not designated by the California Department of Conservation as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 12 of 34
b. Less-than-significant impact. The project site is currently zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural)for commercial and agricultural uses. However, most of the parcel is zoned commercial and will therefore be in consistent with adjacent commercial properties. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and therefore would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore impact will be less than significant.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for commercial uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest.
e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes commercial uses in an area designated for commercial development by the General Plan. There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b. 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)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). As such, air quality impacts from the project are controlled through policies and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 13 of 34
provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.
The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1 -hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The SJVAB is also classified as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM 2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM 10 standards.
The SJVAPCD requires 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, and from other stationary sources. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) 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 are consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quali ty strategies for the new commercial development include but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the MBGP Air Quality Conservation Element as wel l as the SJVAPCD air quality guidelines and rules.
No study has been conducted for the project since there are no plan s at this time for development. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct the implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that the necessary fees be paid to the SJVAPCD. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. Please refer to responses III.a. Under the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Because there are no proposed plans to develop the pro ject site at this time , the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, there is no impact.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are deemed more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 14 of 34
The project is located on the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street . The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses of single-family residential units to the north of the project site. The nearest school is Whitley Douglas Elementary, approximately half a mile northwest of the project. There are no other known hospitals or nursing homes within a one -mile radius. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor via prolonged exposure to air pollutants.
Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. No impact. The Project does not propose any construction . Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and therefore no impacts.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
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?
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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts on some special-status wildlife species, but no listed special -status plant and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 15 of 34
animal species were found on the site during reconnaissance -level surveys for the project (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024).
Despite there being no indication of special-status wildlife species use on the project site during the site visit, there is potential for use by special -status species in the future due to the project’s overall location within the Central Valley region. A database search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare a nd Endangered Plants revealed several special-status species that occur in the region.
The project is subject to the terms of Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(“USFWS”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), respectively. Terms of these permits require applicants f or all development projects within the plan area to comply directly with requests of the USFWS and the CDFW.
Mitigation Measures 3 – 4 require a survey prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species and compliance with any requirements of the CDFW and USFWS to reduce or avoid significant impacts to biological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 requires training of on-site personnel to increase awareness of FESA and CESA. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species i dentified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024). This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal that has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), located at the project site or within or near the site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.
d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated . It was concluded that t he project would not interfere with wildlife movement (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study 2024). The project is not within the Kern River floodplai n, or along a canal that has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nur sery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special - status wildlife to abandon a nursery site. However, Mitigation Measure 3 requires preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, additional mitigation recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW to reduce potential impacts on nursery sites. Therefore, w ith the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, wildlife species, established native residents, migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites , and impacts are less than significant with mitigatio n incorporated.
e. Less than significant impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (MESA Biological LLC Biological Resource Study Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 16 of 34
2024). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts are less than significant.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore no Cultural Resources Survey was conducted to determined that there are no historical resources on -site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There is potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers be provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery if previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With th e implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource , and impacts are less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage, previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work will cease, and the remains will be handled pursuant to applicable law. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 17 of 34
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants/developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost -saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants /developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency , and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause 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 and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 18 of 34
and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is 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 additional smaller faults suspected of occurring 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 County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. 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 (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic -related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to a near- liquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed by the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 19 of 34
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant.
iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquakes occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore , the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, t he soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.
Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping and the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use has been conditionally approved by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield District (the District).
The site has been considered by the District against its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.
Therefore, the project has already been considered in the groundwater analysis in the UWMP and would not exacerbate subsidence in the area beyond the baseline condition.
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. 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, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site is Granoso and Kimberlina sandy loam, which do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics.
Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
e. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore , there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene -age deposits.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 20 of 34
Like archeological resources, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time therefore, no emissions shall be generated.
b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan as described in VIII.a. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. 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?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 21 of 34
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time and therefore the project shall not pose any hazards to the public.
b. No impact. Please refer to response IX.a. The project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment.
c. No impact. Please refer to response IX.a. As mentioned above, there are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 202 3) and Cortese (CalEPA 202 3) lists under Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of know n hazardous waste concerns. The refore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the site is the Bakersfield Municpal Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles northeast. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within the specified distance within an airport land use plan , or where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. No impact. The project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan since no development is being proposed at this time.
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by both developed and undeveloped land, and its vicinity is commercial and does possess high fuel loads that have a Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 22 of 34
high potential to cause a wildland fire. However. the project does not propose any construction that would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury , or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite?
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements since no development is being proposed at this time.
b. Less than significant impact. Currently, there are no irrigation water rights from a local water district associated with the project site. Potable water f or the site would be supplied by The California Water Company Bakersfield District (the District) which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 23 of 34
does not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore, the project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X.g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.
Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features ; therefore, any proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.
The project does not propose any development and therefore impacts are less than significant.
e. No impact. Please refer to response X.d. The project would not 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 that would result in flooding on - or off- site. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant.
f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on - and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff , and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2 -percent-annual-chance floodplain. The refore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant.
h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal-risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.
The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short -term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its E mergency Operations Plans. Therefore, d ue to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 24 of 34
i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.
The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project does not propose any development at this time.
b. No impact. The project is consistent with both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan ( MBGP) and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022 b). Therefore, the project would not 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 25 of 34
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated GC (General Commercial), SR (Suburban Residential) and zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) with A (Agricultural). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R -MP (Mineral and Petroleum).
Therefore, the project would not 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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project would not generate any short-term construction noise or operational noise since no development is being proposed at this time.
b. No impact. Please refer to response XIII.a. No development is being proposed at this time and therefore no noise shall be generated.
c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 26 of 34
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time
b. No impact. The project site consists of one undeveloped parcel of land. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. 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 i mpacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 27 of 34
growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. No impact. The project does not propose any development at this time and therefore would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.
ii. No impact. The project would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities since no development is being proposed.
iii. No impact. The project would not result in any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities since no development is being proposed.
iv. No impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities.
v. No impact. The Project would not result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City since no development is being proposed.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project 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?
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?
Discussion
a. No impact. There are no proposed plans to develop the project site at this time .
b. No impact. The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 28 of 34
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. No impact. Since no development is being proposed , the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. No impact. Since no development is being proposed, there shall be no conflicts with Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or CEQA Guidelines).
c. No impact. Since no development is being proposed, the project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
d. No impact. Since no construction is being proposed, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landsc ape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 29 of 34
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”). In the letters, the City stated that the ap plicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency t o be significant, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 30 of 34
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. No impact. Since no development is being proposed at this time, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b. No impact. The designated water purveyor is the California Water Company Bakersfield District (“the District”). The project may have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. However, since development is not being proposed, there is no impact.
c. No impact. No Wastewater shall be produced as a result of the project since no development is being proposed.
d. No impact. No solid waste shall be generated because of the project is not proposing any development.
e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 31 of 34
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in any alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. Therefore, the project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project site is relatively flat and not near wildlands . Its surroundings do possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks , and therefore, fire -related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield City limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities, etc. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate-risk to high-risk area for wildfires. The refore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life 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,
substantially 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?
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.)
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 32 of 34
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not 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 ani mal 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, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that 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.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project-specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to underg o a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- specific or site-specific potential impacts, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 33 of 34
REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.
CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.
Available: < https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >.
Accessed: November 18, 2024.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.
CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
April.
CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: November 18, 2024.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS.
Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: November 19, 2024.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2023. EnviroStor.
Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.
Findlaw. 2015. Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Available: < https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1719578.html >.
Accessed: November 18, 2024.
Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.
Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/jsp-uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf >.
Accessed: November 15, 2024.
Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.
Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-and- code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: November 18, 2024.
MESA Biological LLC. Biological Resource Study. August 2024
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2014. Final Negative Declaration For Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plan – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project. Available:
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\03_CEQA\IS_MND_SPR 24-0372 rpn edits.docx Page 34 of 34
< http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-projects/2014/phillips-66- fnd.pdf >. Accessed: November 18, 2024.