S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 1 of 42 M ITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that a Mitigated 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.
P
ROJECT NO. (or Title): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) C
OMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: June 10, 2025
C
OMMENT PERIOD ENDS: July 10, 2025
MI
TIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Bi
ological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
B
IO-1 A biological resource pre -activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.
B
IO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.
B
IO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.
B
IO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special -status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.
B
IO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance (2011) sh all be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
B
IO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2 -feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
B
IO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped sh all be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
B
IO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter sh all be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 2 of 42 BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.
Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),
2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,
3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),
4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.
CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.
CUL -3 Prior to final map approval, provide cultural resource study to the Planning Director.
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures:
GHG-1 Using controls that reduce exhaust from construction equipment.
GHG-2 Using electricity for power instead of diesel, when possible.
GHG-3 No idling of construction equipment engines.
GHG-4 Construct buildings with Uniform Building Code standards to minimize total consumption of energy.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Measures
HAZ-1 Prior to the commencement of ground -disturbing activities, a comprehensive assessment shall be conducted to identify the types and quantities of pesticides and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the project site. The assessment shall include, but not be limited to, analysis for dichloro -diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), toxaphene, and dieldrin.
If any of these OCPs are detected at concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, including those identified in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3 or DTSC-SLs approved local area background thresholds, additional sampling and risk evaluation shall be performed. If contaminant levels are found to exceed
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 3 of 42 acceptable thresholds, remedial actions shall be implemented to reduce concentrations below regulatory levels prior to construction.
The assessment shall also evaluate arsenic levels; any detection of arsenic shall require further analysis and must demonstrate compliance with HHRA Note Number 3, DTSC -SLs, or applicable local baseline levels. If concentrations exceed such thresholds, appropriate remedial actions shall be taken.
Potential contaminants of concern (COCs) associated with former agricultural operations, including but not limited to pesticide mixing/loading areas, drainage ditches, former farmhouses, and outbuildings, shall be identified, sampled, and analyzed. If smudge pots were historically used on -site, additional sampling for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) shall be conducted. All necessary sampling and remediation activities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board) prior to the issuance of grading permits.
HAZ-2 Prior to the importation of any soil or fill material to the project site, the applicant shall ensure that all imported material is free of contaminants and suitable for the intended land use. All imported soil and fill shall be tested in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual to assess potential contaminants of concern and verify that concentrations do not exceed applicable screening levels.
To minimize the risk of introducing contaminated materials to the site, the source and origin of the imported soil or fill shall be documented. Sampling and analysis of imported materials shall be conducted, as appropriate, based on knowledge of the source site and its prior uses. The sampling protocol shall be designed to identify contaminants commonly associated with the source area’s historical land use.
Imported materials shall meet the criteria outlined in DTSC’s Information Advisory: Clean Imported Fill Material fact sheet. Soil that does not meet the applicable screening criteria shall not be imported to the site. Documentation of compliance, including laboratory analytical results and source information, shall be maintained on file and provided to the lead agency for review prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
Additional guidance may be obtained from DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) website to support evaluation and ensure consistency with current DTSC risk assessment practices.
Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures
TRAN-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 4 of 42
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Noeli Topete
(661) 326-3165
4. Project Location: The project is located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield (Accessor Parcel Numbers 529-011-33 and 529-011-34)
5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates Attn: Whitney Jackson
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311
6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling
8. Description of Project
(describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
McIntosh & Associates, representing Opal Land Company Co -Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM Property, LLC & 7- G’s Investment Group, LLC (Owner), is proposing a vesting tentative tract map for 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres, zoned R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling). In addition, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to minerals, not including lessees pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 16.20.060 A.1.
9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by the RRID Main Canal to the north; agricultural land to the east, west and south.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or
participation agreement):
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• City of Bakersfield – Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and Local Mitigation • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General permit
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
A R D E N
F O R E S T D R
S C A F E L L
P I K E S T
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
R E I N A R DREINA RD
REINA RD
R
O
S
E
D
A
L
E
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
Copyright nearmap 2015
AERIAL
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
A R D E N
F O R E S T D R
S C A F E L L
P I K E S T
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
R E I N A R DREINA RD
REINA RD
R
O
S
E
D
A
L
E
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
C-2
M-1
C-2/P .C.D.
M-1
C-2
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
Zoning
Commercial Zone Designations
C-2 Regional Commercial
C-2/P .C.D. Combining
Industrial Zone Designations
M-1 Light Manufacturing
Residential Zone Designations
R-1 One Family Dwelling
R-2 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/2,500 sq. ft.
R-4 Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling Zone - 1 unit/600 sq. ft.
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
11/22/2024
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
CITY LIMIT
GRAFHAM
WOOD
WAY
A R D E N
F O R E S T D R
S C A F E L L
P I K E S T
MORNING
BREEZE ST
L
E
O
N
A
R
D
A
L
V
A
R
A
D
O
R
D
R E I N A R DREINA RD
REINA RD
R
O
S
E
D
A
L
E
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
OLIVE DR
RENFRO RD
SANTA FE WAY
R-IA
HMR
GC
GC
LR
MUC
LMR
LMR
LR
LR
LR
LI
LI
LI
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low Medium Density
Residential: > 4 units but ≤ 10
dwelling units/net acre
HMR - High Medium Density
Residential: > 7.26 units but ≤
17.42 dwelling units/net acre
LR - Low Density Residential: ≤
7.26 dwelling units/net acre
COMMERCIAL
GC - General Commercial
MUC - Mixed Use Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
RESOURCE
R-IA - Resource - Intensive
Agriculture: 20 acre minimum parcel
size
VTTM 7450
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7450
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
LR
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 11 of 42 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As i
ndicated 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.):
□ Aes
thetics □ 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
ENVI
RONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On
the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I f in
d that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I f
ind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifi cant 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 f
ind that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, an d an environmental impact report is required.
□ I f
ind that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I f
ind 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 appl icable 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.
June 26, 2025
Si gnature Date
_____
_______Noeli Topete___________
Pri nted name
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 12 of 42
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. Identi fy 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:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 13 of 42
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 within the City limits at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway in northwest Bakersfield . The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is agricultural land. The construction of single - family residential at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban 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 i mpact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.
Additionally, the project 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, n.d.). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County over 60 miles to the southeast of the project area . Therefore, the project would not s ubstantially 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. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d. Less than significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development standards, including Title 17 ( Zoning Ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 14 of 42
Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
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. Less than significant impact. The project site is designated as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC, 2022). The project site was granted a nonagricultural entitlement through a prezone from County A (Exclusive Agriculture) to R -1 (One Family Dwelling) in 2010 ( ZC 09-0591; Ordinance 4611) . Subsequently, the project site zone changed from R -1 (Single -Unit Dwelling) to R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling) in 2024 (ZC 24- 0055; Ordinance 1576). The project would not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to non-agricultural uses. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract (KernGIS, 2025) . Therefore, the project would result in a less than Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 15 of 42
significant impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use.
b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R -2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) and is not under a Williamson Act contract (KernGIS, 2025). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned R -2. There are no forest lands located on the site. 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. There are no forestlands within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the change 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..
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. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants, 2025). The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 16 of 42
microns (PM 10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The SJVAPCD has annual emission significance thresholds used to determine whether a project would result in a substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions (See Table 1 and Table 2). The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 and EMFAC2011 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Estimates of the project’s construction and operational emissions are summarized respectively in Table 1 and Table 2 below (Trinity Consultants, 2025).
Table 1 Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2025 0.10 0.89 0.99 0.002 0.15 0.08
2026 0.17 1.38 2.02 0.003 0.13 0.07
2027 4.10 0.08 0.12 0.000 0.01 0.00
Maximum 4.10 1.38 2.02 0.003 0.15 0.08
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
*Note: 0.000 could represent < 0.000
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
Table 2 Annual Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.03 1.60 8.83 0.03 2.49 0.65
Area 5.78 0.09 2.55 0.01 0.24 0.23
Energy 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03
Maximum 6.83 2.01 11.51 0.04 2.76 0.91
Annual Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
As shown in Table 1 and Table 2 above, the emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and are consistent with applicable air quality attainment plans, including associated control measures and regulations. (Trinity Consultants, 2025). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the implementation of an air quality plan.
b. Less than significant impact. As discussed in response III.a above, emissions of ROG, NO X, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effects related to criteria pollutants.
c. Less than significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site would be residential uses 0. 14 miles south of the project site; however, the residential uses will be separated from the p roject by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) main line railroad . There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 17 of 42
SJVAPCD considers a cancer risk to be significant if it exceeds 20 in one million, and non -cancer health risks to be significant if the hazard index is greater than 1.0. For this analysis, a 2 -year exposure duration was assumed. As shown in Table 3, the maximum cancer risk and non- cancer hazard index from the proposed Project are below these thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant health risk impact under CEQA (Trinity Consultants, 2025). Therefore, the project would not e xpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations , and impacts are less than significant.
Table 3 Maximum Potential Health Impacts
Value UTM East UTM North
Express Cancer Risk 0.028 in a
million
303777.1 3921178.9
Chronic Hazard Index 0.0000162 303777.1 3921178.9
Source: (Trinity Consultants, 2025)
d. No impact. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This project is not included on the list of land uses generally regarded to have site odor problems per Table 6 of the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015). Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect related to odors.
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?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 18 of 42
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. A Biological Clearance Survey Report was prepared by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) for the project (PruettBio, 2025). The fieldwork conducted for report was consistent with the federal and state general survey guidelines for timing and spacing requirements for the detection of special- status species required for a biological clearance survey . Initial fieldwork was first conducted on April 30, 2025.
The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site.
Federal- and State -Listed or otherwise special- status species that have the historical or current distributions within a 10-mile radius of the project site include, but are not limited to: Blunt -nosed leopard lizard ( Gambelia sila; BNLL), San Joaquin antelope squirrel ( Ammospermophilus nelsoni; SJAS), San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ; SJKF), and Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides ; TKR), Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei ; BACA), Kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis ), and burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia; BUOW). BUOW populations in the San Joaquin Valley occur in close association with California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) (PruettBio, 2025).
No special -status species were observed on the project site during the biological survey. No BACA is present within the project site , and the project site does not provide suitable habitat for Kern mallow or BNLL. No BUOW, BUOW burrows, or evidence of BUOW presence were detected, and no avian ground nests were observed. The site is located outside the known range of SJAS and TKR, and no burrows or indicators of kangaroo rat presence were found. No SWHA nests are known within a five -mile radius, and due to the limited number of SWHA nests in Kern County and the size and location of the project, impacts to SWHA foraging are expected to be less than significant. While the site has some potential for SJKF burrowing and foraging, no SJKF dens (natal, known, or potential), scat, tracks, or other sign were observed during the field survey.
Additionally, no burrows typical of California ground squirrel were found, further supporting the absence of BUOW and SJKF. Avoidance and minimization measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take occurring during project activities (PruettBio, 2025).
With implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project would not h ave 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 C alifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) or Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).
b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site.
This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area.
Therefore, the project would result in no impacts 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, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 19 of 42
National Wetlands Inventory within the project area (USFWS, 2023). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally-protected wetlands.
d. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . No evidence of nursery sites was observed during the site survey. In addition, the project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). However, measures BIO -1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites.
e. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies. However, as stated in responses IV.a and IV.d, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid the probability of take during project activities. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e .
With implementation of measure BIO-1 through BIO-9, the project would not c onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
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. No impact. A Cultural Resource s Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search concluded that there are no cultural resources within the project site that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014) . In addition, a ccording to the Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield Map, the project site does not include a historic building or site (City of Bakersfield, 2022). Therefore, the project would not c ause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014) . In addition, according to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the majority of archeological sites within the city lie outside of urban development areas.
The soil within the project site has been disturbed previously; therefore, the likelihood of Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 20 of 42
archeological resources being present and intact is low. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, m easure CUL-1 would be implemented. With implementation of measure CUL-1 through CUL-3, the project would not significantly affect archeological resources.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site, previously used for agricultural purposes, has been previously disturbed. There are no known human remains on the site, and it is neither located within nor adjacent to a former cemetery. The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage previously unknown human remains. Measure CUL-2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercia l projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical commercial construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. 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 modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, 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 and 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 21 of 42
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,
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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
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 numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern 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 (CDOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not expose Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 22 of 42
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving 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.
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 are transformed from a solid state to near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high -water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur.
Soils underlain the project site include Wasco sandy loam (USDA, n.d.). The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with a high ground water. In addition, 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 expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. Less than significant impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake 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. Less than significant impact. The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2025) .The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site likely to have substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site’s soils have low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion by rainfall (USDA, n.d.).
Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012- 0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 23 of 42
During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.
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 as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
d. No impact. The soil identified on site, Wasco sandy loam , does not have a high potential to be expansive (USDA, n.d.). Additionally, 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 expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.
e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area.
Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
f. No impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features.
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. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum was prepared for the project (Trinity Consultants, 2025) . The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts.
Although the project is expected to emit GHG, the emission of GHG by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse envir onmental effect. Rather, it is the increased Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 24 of 42
accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The result consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.
The project would potentially contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. However, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, given the efforts made to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and other statewide regulations adopted pursuant to A ssembly Bill 32 (AB 32). With proposed design measures, state regulation and air quality regulation implemented, GHG emissions will be reduced by at least 16%, in compliance with AB 32, and impacts will remain below a level of significance. Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would be incor porated as design features to reduce GHG emissions by at least 16%.
Because the project applicant is implementing the operational measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 as suggested by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate. Implementation of these measures also ensures that the project is in compliance with the Climate Change Action Plan being implemented by the SJVAPCD.
b. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan or completed the necessary steps such as a GHG inventory or target -setting to allow for CEQA streamlining under SB 97 or the 2018 CEQA Guidelines amendments. While the SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, it does not contain measures applicable to individual development projects and therefore cannot be applied to this project. In the absence of a local or regional GHG reduction plan, the project’s consistency with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plans, including the 2008 Scoping Plan and 2017 Update, was evaluated.
The project would comply with existing regulations and implementation of applicable design features. Based on the project’s emissions and alignment with statewide strategies for reducing GHG emissions across key sectors, the project is considered consistent with State GHG reduction goals and would not result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA.
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 25 of 42
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. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. However, construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. In addition, measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented to properly analyze soil prior to ground disturbance and ensure it is properly disposed of and remediated if necessary. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non -hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.
The project is the development of up to 176 single family residential units. Day-to-day activities in residences do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residences would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Residential users should follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents at home. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Additionally, residential hazardous waste can be dropped off at Metro Kern County Special Waste Facility located at 4951 Standard Street or at one -day hazardous waste collection events that take place throughout the year. Therefore, the proje ct would not create a Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 26 of 42
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . Please refer to response VIX.a.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment.
c. No impact. The closest school is Frontier High School located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC, 2025) and Cortese lists (DTSC, n.d.) pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, 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, 2011). The closest airport to the project site is the Meadows Field Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. 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 a distance an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (City of Bakersfield, 1996) . This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (City of Bakersfield, 2025) . The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is agricultural and urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 27 of 42
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. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground disturbing activities. As discussed in VII.b, the project site’s soil types have a low -to-medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall and a low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface. Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As described in VI I.b, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is required to comply with the General Permit because project -related construction activities would disturb at least 1 acre of soil.
b. Less than significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water provided a “Will Serve Letter” for the project, and therefore groundwater levels have already been accounted for in the UWMP with the project (a future entitlement) (CalWater, 2024) . Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 28 of 42
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.
c. The following discusses 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.
i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on - and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. 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, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite.
iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on - and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floodplain (FEMA, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
d. 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 located 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 I sabella flood inundation area ( USACE, n.d ), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County Fire Department, 2009) ) that establishes a process 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 Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the proj ect’s location and Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 29 of 42
implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan
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 or is an infill development. The project is not 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 is the development of a finite 32.66- acre project site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b. No impact. The project does not require any land use or zoning change. The proposed single - family residential development is consistent with the Low -Density designation of the MBGP and R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone on the site. Therefore, 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
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 30 of 42
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 (CDOC, n.d.). 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.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated LR (Low Density Residential). No portion of the site is designated for a 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 groundborne vibration or
groundborne 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. Less than significant impact. The project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment generates sound levels between 80 and 85 A -weighted decibels (dBA), which is a decibel system reflective of human hearing characteristics. At 80 to 85 dBA, the human response to such a sound level is annoyance and difficulty hearing conversation. Using the rule of thumb that noise attenuates 7.5 dBA per a doubling of distance away from the sound -emitting source, it would require 800 feet away from an 85-dBA sound-emitting source to obtain a 55 dBA sound level, which is considered “quiet” to the human ear. There are sensitive receptors (existing SFR) approximately 9 00 feet to the southwest of the project site. However, project construction would be limited to 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends per Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter
9.22 (Noise).
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of single -family residential land uses and residents would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 31 of 42
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground -borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground -borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed neighborhood commercial use would not generate ground -borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c. No impact. T he project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
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. Less than significant impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of new homes , and the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. The project would also require the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on growth. b. No impact. The project site consists of agricultural land. Therefore, 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 impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 32 of 42
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 growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County.
Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project would produce up to 176 units to accommodate 563 residents and generate approximately 85 school-aged children as indicated in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Generation of School Aged Children
Number and Type
of Dwelling Units Elementary (K-8) High School (9-
12) Total Pupils
363 single-family
units 176 x 0.31 176 x 0.17 85
Totals 55 30
This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 33 of 42
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project proposes a population increase of 563 and may result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people and therefore, the park acreage estimated for the project is 1.41 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits.
Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
v. Less than significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.
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. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not 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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 34 of 42
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, 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.
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. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . A Traffic Letter dated March 20, 2025, was prepared for the project by McIntosh & Associates (McIntosh & Associates Inc., 2025) . The City of Bakersfield Traffic Division reviewed the Traffic Letter and concurred with its findings (City of Bakersfield Traffic Division, 2025) . Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service (LOS) on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic (including construction worker trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site.
However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic -related effects.
Policy 36 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element states:
Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service standard) or when the existing Level of Service if below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three -part mitigation program:
adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area -wide impact fee.
The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date.
Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the MBGP requires the City to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right -of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. In addition, the Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 35 of 42
Subdivision Ordinance requires all on -site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed.
Mitigation measure TRAN-1 would require that the applicant/developer participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Program and the payment of Local Mitigation fees.
With implementation of th is mitigation measure, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to response XVII.a. With implementation of measure TRAN-1, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
c. Less than significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations . Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
d. Less than significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
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 landscape, 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)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 36 of 42
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 . A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted for the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). The Cultural Resources Records Search determined that there are no cultural resources within the project site . Additionally, no portion of the site is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, 2014). However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on tribal cultural resources.
b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorpora ted. See response XVII.a. above. 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 to be 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 waste water 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?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 37 of 42
facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of residential development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (City of Bakersfield, 1989) . Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the such facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, 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. Less than significant impact. The Cal Water has provided a “Will Serve Letter” stating that water service can be supplied to the development (Cal Water , 2024). The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed.
c. Less than significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at the North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD). NORSD has a capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and treats an average inflow of 5.6 MGD . NORSD is proposing an expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant to service its existing and planned population. It has sufficient capacity to serve the project (ESA, 2025) . As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
d. Less than significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.
In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on -site trash facilities, subject to city approval . Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
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.
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?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 38 of 42
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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield , 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially 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. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not 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.
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 extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project. 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.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate - to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not 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.
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
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 39 of 42
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.)
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 must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site.
However, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project 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 animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
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 the 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 projects 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 undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project - or site-specific potential impacts, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 40 of 42
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.
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 41 of 42
References
Caltrans. (n.d.). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California Department of Transportation:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
CalWater. (2024). WIll Serve Letter.
CDOC. (2022). California Important Farmland FInder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ CDOC. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from Department of Conservation California Geological Survey:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ CDOC. (n.d.). Well Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
City of Bakersfield. (1989). Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ca-bakersfield/e1fc107e-67a1-4264-8cad- 21b263cfe3e8/subdivision-engineering-design-manual-1989-pdf-.pdf?sq=cb0ab94f-1777-ce46- 5822-690d8a00f8f2&scope=all
City of Bakersfield. (1996). Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Bakersfield.
City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield . Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2 City of Bakersfield. (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1cb624df-5c64-473b-95e4- c6b51c7537ea?cache=1800
City of Bakersfield Traffic Division. (2025). TM 7450 Traffic Impact Analysis Exemption.
DTSC. (2025). Envirostor. Retrieved from California Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
DTSC. (n.d.). Department of Toxic Substances Control. Retrieved from DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List): https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ ESA. (2025). NORSD Wster Resource Recovery Facility Project. Retrieved from https://www.norsd.com/files/3133b4f0d/NORSD+WRRF+Project.pdf FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. United Stataes. Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Kern County. (2011). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=932206&page=1&cr=1 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\05_Land Division\24-60000187_VTTM 7450_14225 Olive Dr & Rosedale Ranch\03_CEQA\Final_IS_MND_VTTM 7450_clean.docx Page 42 of 42
Kern County Fire Department. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-Dam- Failure-Plan.pdf
KernGIS. (2025, March 17). ArcGIS. Retrieved from Kern COunty WIlliamson Act- Active:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=49aeef8ba48e4159a64923306820a c69
McIntosh & Associates Inc. (2025). Traffic Letter.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2025). NOW Data. Retrieved from National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=hnx PruettBio. (2025). Biological Clearance Survey – 32.66 Gross Acres, Tract 7450, Bakersfield, California.
Bakersfield.
SJVAPCD. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. (2014). Cultural Resources Records Search. Bakersfield.
Trinity Consultants. (2025). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Memorandum. Bakersfield.
USACE. (n.d). Anticipated areas to flood in unlikely failure of Isabella Dam. Californa, Kern County.
Retrieved from
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/edit orial/8/04/804257c6-3a0c-54aa-a8b0-c8feb01b5631/594469881bd09.pdf.pdf USDA. (n.d.). United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service .
Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. (2023, April 25). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/