STUDIES
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 4 of 46 INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3673
4. Project Location: The project is located on two contiguous parcels totaling approximately 28.91 acres (APN: 541- 010-23 and 541-010-27 in southwest, Bakersfield, California. The Project site is located on the northside of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road.
5. Applicant (name and address): New Gen Engineering Group Inc.
Attn: Isabella Herrera
10800 Stockdale Hwy., Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311
6. General Plan Designation: R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture)
7. Zoning: R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone
8. Description of Project
(describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
Keith Gardiner (property owner), through his representative New Gen Engineering Group Inc. (applicant), is requesting the cancellation of a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract on approximately 28.91 acres located on the north side of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 541-010-23 and -27].
The cancellation is being requested in conjunction with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation of the site from Resource -Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR), or a more restrictive designation, under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project site is currently encumbered by an active Williamson Act contract, which restricts the use of the land to agricultural purposes.
The cancellation is necessary to facilitate the development of 147 single -family residential lots (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7410) across the 28.91- acre project site. The proposed lots will range in size from 4,589 square feet to 11,462 square feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 5,150 square feet. The net density of the proposed development is 8.64 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the LMR designation. The project will include the full construction of Mountain Vista Drive, which will traverse the site and connect to McCutchen Road, providing circulation and access for future residents.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 5 of 46 Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract is being pursued in accordance with state law, based on findings that the proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan and that cancellation is in the public interest.
9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. Historically the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.
Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north - single family residential and vacant; east – single family residential; south - agricultural; and west – currently vacant however there is a tentative tract map (T7042) for single family residential. This area is in the stages to commence grading activity for future development of single family residential homes.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services
Department and Public Works
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• Issue a Construction Activity General Construction
Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance
California Water Service
Company Bakersfield district
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 6 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-000 l
AERIAL
~
BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500
11 /22/2024
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 7 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001
!RONIOOTHAVE
AlUZARAVE
QUENTUIAVE
LR
GPA 21-0424
WAC 25-0001
R-IAto LMR
HMR
~
~ >
i "
LR
-,-
' J; ARNORIVERlN
~
= ;
'
LR
~HID AQU~IK K )D Career
{Ot\PLEX ariii chnical
Eduw, nCenter
LR
P.S
Independence
H'gh !.i:hool
Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
HMI . HighMdiumD, n,ity
□ lts icltnTiol,> 1.1iun~1but S
11.47dw1llinguni1J/1tt 1r11
CJ \176 t;;,~~-~s::~;/~;::::~, s
COMMERCIAL
- 6C - 6tm1l(omm,nial
PUBLICFACILIIIES
c:J ~ •MlkjPrivo11Kh1oh
moum
~
BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
0 500 1,000
11 /22/2024
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 8 of 46 General Plan Amendment 21 -0424
Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001
R-1
R-2ZP.U.D.
Zoning
Commerdol Zone Designation5
- (·1/'-CQ.Combinin;
l!esidentia lZone Duign otions
c:J l •IOn1familyDwollin1
l-t/P.U.D.Combinin1
1-1/P.U.D.ComHling
~
BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500
11 /22/2024
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 9 of 46 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As in
dicated 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.):
□ A est
hetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On t
he basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I fi
nd that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I fi
nd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, t here will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I fi
nd that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I fi
nd 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 be en (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 fi
nd 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.
7/
21/25
Sig nature Date
A sh
ley Knight
Prin ted name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 10 of 46 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:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 11 of 46 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. A viewshed is the geographical area that is visible from a location.
Scenic vistas often refer to views of natural lands within a viewshed but may also be compositions of natural and developed areas, or even entirely of developed and unnatural areas, such as a scenic vista of a rural town and surrounding agricultural lands. The project is located on a major arterial (McCutchen Road ) and within 0.5 miles to two other arterials (Buena Vista Road and Old River Drive). The viewshed from the project site to the north, east and west is comprised of single-family residential communities and vacant land. The viewshed directly to the south is land currently used as agriculture.
The project location is considered generally flat at about 345 feet above mean sea level (Pruett 2024). There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that are applicable to the project.
Additionally, the area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) as being visually important or designated “scenic.” The construction and development of the project would be consistent with the existing neighborhood commercial development surrounding the site therefore, the project would not have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no rock outcrops or historic buildings located at the project site. The project does not conflict with any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan regarding the trees that are on 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 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 33 (Caltrans 2017) located in Kern County about 32 miles to the southwest. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 12 of 46 c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project site is compatible with existing urban land . Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings , and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 Zoning, Title 15 Buildings and Construction, and the California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Building Standards Code).
Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting 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, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 13 of 46 a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . The proposed project site consists of approximately 28.91 acres of land designated as “Prime Farmland” by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Although the site is classified as Resource -Intensive Agriculture (R -IA) under the current land use designation, the zoning classification is Single -Unit Dwelling (R-1). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Low Medium Density Residential (LMR) to align with the existing zoning and facilitate the development of 147 residential lots. This change would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to non -agricultural use, representing a potentially significant impact.
The site, however, is situated within an area that has transitioned rapidly from agricultural production to residential development. Surrounding the property, there are established and developing residential neighborhoods to the north, east, and west, while the land to the south remains in agricultural use but is already zoned for future residential development. The proposed project would act as an infill development, blending into the existing community and aligning with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) growth strategy. The MBGP acknowledges that farmland conversion is an unavoidable consequence of urban expansion, but it encourages infill development to reduce the outward spread of development into larger, contiguous agricultural areas.
The site itself has not been actively farmed in recent years, and the irrigation infrastructure has been removed. While the land is currently under a Williamson Act contract, it is no longer viable for long-term agricultural use due to its lack of active cultivation and proximity to existing urban development. The proposed cancellation of the contract reflects this shift in land use potential.
The site's location near existing urban services , such as water, sewer, and roads , makes it well- suited for residential development without the need for significant infrastructure expansion.
Additionally, given California’s ongoing housing crisis, the development of new housing units directly addresses a critical state need, helping to alleviate pressure on housing supply and affordability (McIntosh & Associates, 2025).
The City of Bakersfield’s General Plan policies, which consider land use transitions and buffer requirements to mitigate conflicts between residential and agricultural uses, further supports the suitability of this land use change. Therefore, although farmland conversion remains a serious consideration, the proposed project aligns with regional growth patterns and broader policy goals, making the impact on agricultural resources less severe within the overall planning framework. While the permanent loss of Prime Farmland is potentially significant, the context of the site within an increasingly urbanized area, the absence of ongoing agricultural production, and the demonstrated need for housing collectively reduce the impact to a less -than-significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . The Project site is currently zoned R -1 (Single- Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, which is not an agricultural zone; however, the property is currently under a Williamson Act contract (McIntosh & Associates, 2025). As such, the proposed development would require cancellation of the contract prior to construction. While the zoning does not support agricultural uses, the presence of the Williamson Act contract means the Project must demonstrate consistency with state requirements for cancellation and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to address the loss of contracted agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 14 of 46 c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the Project site is zoned for residential uses . The proposed land use change would provide for residential density throughout the Project site. There are no forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production lands on the Project site or in the nearby vicinity. Therefore, the P roject would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, t here are no forestlands on the Project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non- forest.
e. No impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d . This project proposes to change the existing land use designation to residential which coincide s with the surrounding existing residential area designated for urban development by the General Plan. There are no agricultural or forestlands in proximity to the P roject that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development.
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 with mitigation incorporated . The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( “SJVAPCD”), as such, air quality impacts from the Project are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California Air Resources Board ( “CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 15 of 46 The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and from other stationary sources. They do so through the permitting authority under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (Rule 2201) and the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (Rule 2010). Other regulation s and policy that require compliance with air quality strategies for new residential and commercial developments include, but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element.
A Small Project Analysis Level Assessment (SPAL) ( Trinity, July 2024) was conducted for the proposed Project. The study concluded that the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds, and that the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan.
As shown in the following table, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance for the operation of specific projects.
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/Precursor
Construction-Related
Emissions Operational Emissions
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions
(tpy)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO2) 100 100 100
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 10 10 10
Reactive Organic Gass
(ROG) 10 10 10
Sulfur Oxides (Sox) 27 27 27
Particulate Matter, less
than 10 microns (PM
10)
15 15 15
Particulate Matter, less
than 2.5 microns (PM
2.5)
15 15 15
Source: Trinity, July 2024
Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides estimated construction emissions from the project. It was assumed in developing construction emission calculations that: 1) exposed areas would be watered three times per day and 2) construction vehicle speeds would be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 16 of 46 Construction Emissions
Construction Year Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2026 Construction Emissions 0.26 2.28 2.67 0.01 0.30 0.17 2027 Construction Emissions 0.16 1.30 1.94 0.00 0.11 0.06 2028 Construction Emissions 0.15 1.24 1.92 0.00 0.11 0.05 2029 Construction Emissions 2.37 0.48 0.78 0.00 0.04 0.02 Max Construction Emissions 0.26 2.28 2.67 0.01 0.30 0.17 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity, July 2024
As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.
Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. The main source of emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site. The following table provides estimated operational emissions from the project.
Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.76 0.80 6.97 0.02 1.64 0.42
Area 3.34 0.08 2.13 0.00 0.20 0.19
Energy 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrigerant - - - - - -
Max Operational Emissions 4.12 1.14 9.22 0.02 1.86 0.64 SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No N/A No No
Source: Trinity, July 2024
As shown in the above table, operational emissions are also not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels. Because the project develops more than 2,000 square feet of residential space, it must comply with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Rule ( “ISR”) (Rule 9510).
Mitigation Measure 1 requires that the project comply with SJVAPCD air quality control measures and rules, including the ISR . Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response III.a. Under SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts ( “GAMAQI”; SJVAPCD 2015), any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 17 of 46 Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing CEQA Guidelines Section15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that “[a] Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located” (SJVAPCD 2015).
Because the air quality modeling indicates that project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Based on these anticipated activity levels, the Project construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions were found to be less than significant impact.
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. The proposed Project is located on the north side of McCutchen Road between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road . Sensitive receptors are defined as areas where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes and daycare centers are locations where sensitive receptors would likely reside. The closest sensitive receptors are the surrounding residential uses and Independence High School located one half mile east of the proposed Project site. There is a daycare approximately one mile to the northwest. There are no known nursing homes or hospitals within a one -mile radius of the Project. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the proposed Project is not expected to affect any on -site or off-site sensitive receptors and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor (Trinity, July 2024) . Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed Project consists of residential uses that do not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 18 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project site has the potential to result in significant impacts to some special- status wildlife species, but no listed special- status plant species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys for the Project (Pruett, 2024).
The reconnaissance -level survey performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measure 4 as follows:
• A biological resource pre -activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30-days before the start of construction activities. • Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special- status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 19 of 46 • 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) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
• Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
• Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
• Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.
Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures the Project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site (Pruett, 2024). This Project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the Project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the Project area ( Pruett, 2024). Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.
d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated . It was concluded that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement ( Pruett, 2024). The Project is not within the Kern River floodplain or along a canal which has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special- status wildlife to abandon a nursery site.
However, Mitigation Measures as identified in IV.a would reduce potential impacts to nursery sites. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures the Project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e. Less-than-significant impact. It was concluded that the Project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Pruett, 2024). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 20 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey ( Hudlow, 2024) was completed for the Project by a qualified cultural resources specialist. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain historical resources but has potential to find historical resources during construction ( Hudlow, 2022). Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the Project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (Hudlow, 2022). However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources.
Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers are provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery in the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains found at the Project site ( Hudlow, 2022). The Project could inadvertently uncover or damage previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the Project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated .
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 21 of 46 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 residential projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential 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 and the impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants 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 and the impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 22 of 46 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.
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?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
~
□
~
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 23 of 46 i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map (California Geological Survey) , the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic -related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to near -liquid state because 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. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service) shows the site contains Kimberlina soil at a 0 to 2 percent slope.
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.
Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surface (USGS 2016) and therefore, groundwater levels are not close enough to the ground surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. As a result, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. 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, and impacts are less than significant.
iv. No 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. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil however during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. In addition, the relatively low precipitation in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that the soils are well drained does not make the project site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant .
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 24 of 46 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, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on site, primarily Kimberlina fine sandy loam , do not have a high potential to be expansive. 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 , and the impacts are less than significant.
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. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Due to the presence of alluvial deposits, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources.
Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 8, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature , and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. 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 environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 25 of 46 resultant 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.
On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was enacted by the State of California which charges the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) with responsibility to monitor, regulate, and reduce GHG emissions. CARB defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. In order for Projects to conform with the goals of AB 32, at least a 29% reduction of GHG emissions from Business- as-Usual (“BAU”) must be achieved. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. Senate Bill 100 which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero -carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B -55-18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. T he 2009 guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today's standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State.
For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 5 -3 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project's largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap- and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each sector -wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons) CO2
Emissions
CH4
Emissions
N20
Emissions
Refrigerant
Emissions
CO2E
Emissions
Total Project
Operations
2,156 1.91 0.09 3.26 2,233
Total Project
Operations -
Mitigated
2,123 1.91 0.08 3.26 2,199
Source: Trinity, July 2024
The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply- chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change based on energy purchases from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project's contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, impacts are less than significant .
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 26 of 46 b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the Project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project proposes to develop a 147 unit single family residential project and therefore, does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. 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 fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 27 of 46 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. 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.
Day-to-day activities from the Project operations do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of residential buildings would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides.
Building tenants are required to follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents in the workplace. 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. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project site is approximately 0.2 miles west of Independence High School. Due to the location and nature of the project, materials, substances, and waste, considered hazardous in nature will be handled accordingly during construction activities. The Air Quality/GHG Study concluded that the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people ( Trinity, 2024). Therefore, as mentioned above, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to the handling of hazardous materials thus, impacts are less than significant.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 202 5) and Cortese (CalEPA 202 5) lists 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 2012). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 7.4 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The P roject is not located within the specified distance or within 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 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 28 of 46 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 (Bakersfield 1997). 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, and impacts are less than significant .
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2023). The site is surrounded by extensively developed land, and its vicinity is 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, and impacts are less than significant .
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 29 of 46 Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground -disturbing activities.
Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soils; however, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.
The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board ( “CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016- 0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained within the City because of operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the project site. Therefore, by complying with the MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements , and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. The project site had been supplied by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield district for its current use. California Water Service Company Bakersfield district has provided a Verification of Property Location for Water Service letter for the Project.
The District receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. By state law, current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) do not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time.
It was concluded that District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore , it can be concluded that the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X. g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features 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 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 30 of 46 alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X. d. 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. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant.
f. 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, and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant .
h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is 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 Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), 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 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. Therefore, d ue to the project’s location and 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X. d.. 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 or will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in flooding on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 31 of 46 Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.
The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The proposed project is the development of a residential tract totaling 147 residential lots and is adjacent to existing residential development. The development will not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Additionally, as part of the proposed development, existing street collectors and arterials will be further developed thereby increasing circulation and access to communities with int City. Therefore the project will not physically divide an established community.
b. No impact. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment (“GPA ”) to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to allow residential development , namely a change from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential). The Project does not require a Zone Change (“ZC”) because it is already zoned R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling), which is consistent with the LMR land use. The site’s zoning allows for the implementation of the proposed Project’s density and meets the development standards in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If the GPA were to be approved by the City, the Project land use and zoning would be consistent with both the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. 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
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 ( CalGEM). 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 R-IA, if the GPA is approved, this designation would change to LMR. No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R -MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 32 of 46 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 both short -term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short -term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, and construction worker commutes.
The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long -term noise level change would not be perceptible.
The second type of short- term construction noise is related to noise generated during project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise would cease to occur once project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends.
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of residential land uses, which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Typical examples of noise sources associated with residential land uses include HVAC/mechanical equipment, truck deliveries, parking lot activities, drive thru operations, etc. It was determined that the noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the City’s daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA.
Therefore, the project would not generate 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 33 of 46 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. Groundborne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate groundborne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed residential development would not generate groundborne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts are less than significant.
c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
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. The proposed Project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of 147 residential lots. The Project will be developed adjacent to existing established residential uses and is therefore the logical extension of existing urban development. Bakersfield has experienced approximately 13% growth in population (347,483 people in 2010 to 394,328 in 2019) since 2010 (DOF 2019a and DOF 2019b). It is predicted that by 2040, 1,137,676 people will live in Kern County (DOF 2019c). Given that 42.5% of the people in Kern County currently live in Bakersfield (DOF 2019b), and if this trend continues, it is estimated that about 483,512 people would live in Bakersfield in 2040. This means that by 2040, 81,951 additional people would need housing in the Bakersfield area. This Project will be in compliance with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and will accommodate the orderly development projected increase in Bakersfield’s population by providing residences for existing and future residents in Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. The Project site is undeveloped land, historically used for agricultural. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 34 of 46 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:
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, and impacts are less than significant.
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, 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, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and therefore, is a driver for population growth, including the need for additional schools. The need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
181
181
181
181
181
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
G:\pln\SHARED\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424 & WAC 25-0001\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 35 of 46
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, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for schools , and impacts are less than significant.
iv. Less than significant impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities. However, park impact fees are required for residential land uses. 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
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 , and impacts are less than significant.
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. Although the project would 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, park impact fees shall allow the City to upgrade, improve or rehabilitate an existing or proposed public park to better serve the public, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than Significant I mpact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 36 of 46 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment , therefore , impacts are less than significant.
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 . The Project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. 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 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.
A Traffic Study was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers, 2024). Section 15064.3 required agencies to begin implementing the new VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) requirement no later than July 1, 2020. Since the City of Bakersfield has not adopted any thresholds for VMT analysis, the Technical Advisory (TA) released by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was used as a basis for the evaluation. The traffic study concluded that the project’s per capita VMT is 37.2% greater than the assumed threshold from the OPR.
In order to mitigate the VMT impacts, Mitigation Measure No. 9 will require that the Project includes residential dwellings that are EV (electric vehicle) capable, promoting the use of electric vehicles. Additionally, the P roject will construct on -site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off -site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off -site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road. These improvements will enhance multi- modal access and reduce VMT associated with this project. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 37 of 46 Mitigation Measure No. 10 requires the Project applicant to participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying adopted fees by land use type at the time of development. Additionally, t he Project will be designed in accordance with City development standards. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 9 and No. 10, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“ CCR” or CEQA Guidelines), statewide application came into effect July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:
Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one -half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high- quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.
The baseline (2015) conditions regional VMT per capita was obtained from the Kern COG TDM model “no project” model run. The regional VMT per capita is 16.8. Further, as stated above, 15 percent below the baseline regional VMT per capita was considered as the threshold which results in a numerical value of VMT threshold of 14.3. Table A shows the regional threshold and 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 38 of 46 project VMT per capita rate. As shown in Table A, the project VMT per capita is 19.62 which is greater than the threshold by 37.2 percent. As such, based on the OPR TA and the methodology described in this memorandum, the project will have a significant VMT impact.
Baseline (2015) Regional and Project VMT per capita Comparison 2015 Project City of Bakersfield Threshold* Difference % Difference VMT per Capita 19.62 14.30 5.32 37.2%
*Estimated using “No project” VMIP II base year (2015) model runs
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures No. 9 and No. 10 (identified in XVII.a.), the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 in the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. T he project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses , therefore impacts are less than significant.
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 significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
I I I I
I I I I
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 39 of 46 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. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”) . In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources , and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the 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?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 40 of 46 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 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 (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the 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, and impacts are less than significant .
b. Less-than-significant impact. The designated water purveyor is California Water Service Company Bakersfield D istrict. The District has provided a Verification of Property Location for Water Service letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP that accounts for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, the Project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and impacts are less than significant .
c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater as a result of the Project would be treated at Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City. WWTP No. 3 has an overall capacity of 32 MGD and a current available capacity of 1 7.3 MGD (Bakersfield 2023). WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the Project. 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, and impacts are less than significant.
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, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 41 of 46 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
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 1997). 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
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 , and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Bakersfield city limits and 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, and impacts are less than significant . 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 42 of 46 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 , and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
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. Mitigation Measures No. 2, 3, and 4 mitigate potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site. Therefore, the Project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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.”
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 43 of 46 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.
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. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 44 of 46 REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January. Bakersfield. 1999.
Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.
Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:< https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/679/Wastewater-Treatment-Plants >. Accessed: March 17, 2025.
Biological Resource Evaluation. Pruett Biological Resource Consulting . September 2024.
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Cortese List Data Resources.
Available:<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.
CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Available:< https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm- website/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire- hazard-severity-zones-map-2022/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022- files/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_kern_3.pdf?rev=6a1762dc936a43e3b6cd8a89691aad56&hash=87FB25 D33BA10F1DE36F26C5B998B421>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.
California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). Well Finder Map. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ (Accessed March 14, 2025) California Geological Survey. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation [Map]. California Department of Conservation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ .
Accessed: March 4, 2025.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. (2016). Waste discharge requirements general permit for storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (Order R5-2016-0040). Retrieved from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5- 2016-0040_ms4.pdf Accessed: Marc 10, 2025.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2017. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa >. Accessed: March 4, 2024.
CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
April.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 45 of 46 CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: February 25, 2025.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS. Available: < https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ >. Accessed: March 14, 2025.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2025. EnviroStor.
Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: March 5, 2025.
Farmland Conversion Study for General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424. McIntosh & Associates, June 2025.
Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. Available:< https://www.kernpublicworks.com/services/development/floodplain- management/lake-isabella-flood- area >. Accessed: March 10, 2025.
Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.
Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building -and- code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: March 17, 2025.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. <https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed: March 4, 2025.
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. February 2022.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality
Impacts. March.
Small Projects Analysis Level Assessment. Trinity Consultants. July 2024. 1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 46 of 46 Traffic Study. Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers. October 2024.
1:1 .......,
BAKERSFIELD