NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874, Annexation No. 549, (McCutchen #8 Annexation).
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: November 16, 2007
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: December 7, 2007
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures
1. Prior to ground -disturbance activities associated with this project, personnel associated with the grading effort shall be informed of the importance of the potential cultural and archaeological resources (i.e. archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, etc.) that may be encountered during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the regulatory protections afforded to those resources. The personnel shall be informed of procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not collect artifacts. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground -disturbance activities.
This documentation should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s) that conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of those who were trained. Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on-site supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified archaeologist.
2. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately.
Agricultural Impact Mitigation Measure
3. In an attempt to reduce complaints and unwarranted investigations undertaken by the Kern County Department of Agriculture, the following disclosure is suggested to be provided as part of the transfer of properties:
“If your real property is adjacent to property used for agricultural operations, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations on any 24 -hour basis. Said discomforts may include, but shall not be limited to equipment noise, odors from manure and other chemicals, and dust or smoke. It has been determined that in Kern County the use of real property for agricultural operations if such operations are consistent with accepted customs, standards, and laws.”
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The applicant is proposing the following mitigation measures in order to reduce projected emissions. PM - 10 will be the most affected criteria pollutant by the proposed mitigation measures. Construction equipment mitigation measures and design feature mitigation measures area also begin included to reduce project related impacts.
PM-10 Mitigation Measures:
4. Water all unpaved or haul road surfaces as needed.
5. Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph.
6. Water any exposed ground surfaces as needed.
7. Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.
8. Maintain at least a 6 -inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or cover and wet to limit dust emissions.
9. Remove mud or dirt accumulations on public roadways immediately when track out exceeds 50 or more feet as well as at the end of the workday.
10. Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will exceed the SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirements.
Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:
11. Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time.
12. All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications.
13. Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered equipment.
14. Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as during established lunch hours.
In order to reduce project related emissions from mobile sources a number of ‘design features’ can be incorporated into the project. These ‘design features’ help to facilitate alternatives to traditional vehicle use, thereby reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, idling and traffic congestion as well as reducing project related emissions. The following ‘design features’ will be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce emissions:
15. Street lighting.
16. Sidewalk coverage throughout the proposed project.
17. Shade trees with moderate coverage of walkways and/or bikeways.
18. Pedestrian safety signs will be provided with signalization where appropriate.
Regulation VIII Control Measures (From Table 6-2):
19. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
20. All on -site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
21. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
22. With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.
23. When materials are transported off -site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
24. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded of accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden)
25. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
26. Within urban areas, an owner/operator shall prevent carryout and track -out, or immediately remove carryout and track-out when it extends 50 feet or more from the nearest unpaved surface exit point of the site.
27. Any construction site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and track -out.
Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM-10. (From Table 6-3):
Enhanced Control Measures. – Measures to be implemented at construction site to mitigate significant PM-10 impacts:
28. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
29. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
Additional Control Measures. – Measures that are encouraged at large construction sites located near sensitive receptors, or for projects requiring additional emissions reductions:
30. Track out will be prevented by one of the following:
o A Grizzly with rails, pipes or grates to dislodge debris off of existing vehicles, o A layer of washed gravel at one inch or larger in diameter, three inches deep, o Extension of paved road at least 100 feet from publicly maintained road, or o Installation of a wheel washer.
31. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas.
32. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation).
33. Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan A mendment/Zone Change No. 07 -1874, Annexation No. 549 , (McCutchen #8)
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department , 1715 Chester Avenue , Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner, (661) 326 - 3777
4. Project Location: The project site is located at the northeast corner of McCutchen Road and Old River Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number 497-032-19.
5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates, 2001 Wheelan Court, Bakersfield, CA 93309
6. Existing General Plan Designations: R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture)
7. Existing Zoning: A (Agriculture)
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.):
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment from R-IA to LR (Low Density Residential) on 38.09 acres and a Zone Change from A to R-1 (One Family Dw elling) Zone on the same 38.09 acres. The proposal would allow the development of single family residential dwelling units on the site . The proposal also includes the annexation of the site to the City of Bakersfield.
9. Environmental setting (Briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses.):
The 38.09-acre proj ect site is located in the south western portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield are a, northeast of McCutchen Road and Old River Road . The site is currently designated with an agricultural land use and zoning. The site is currently fallow agricultural land . The area west of the site is being developed with the new Independence High School . The areas north and south of the site are fallow land and agriculture, respectively. The area east of the site is in grape vines.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
DIRECTION GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE
NORTH LR R-1 Fallow Agriculture Land
SOUTH R-IA A Agriculture
EAST LR R-1 Grape Vineyards
WEST LR R-1 & R-1/PUD New High School (Independence) under construction
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Building Permits Kern County LAFCO
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental facto rs checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population / Housing
□ Public Services □ Recreation □ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by 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 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to 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.
November 10, 2007
Signature Date
Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
Printed name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed . Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately 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 Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
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) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use?
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) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) 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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
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 Game 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 Game 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?
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?
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a) Expose people or structures to 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 & Geology Special Publication No. 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 the city’s most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial 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?
VII. 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 material 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 Section 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) 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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? a) 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
e) Otherwise, substantially degrade water quality?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) 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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a) 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) 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?
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in;
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project;
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project 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?
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION: Would the project:;
a) 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?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project;
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project 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) 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?
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874
Annexation No. 549, McCutchen #8
I. AESTHETICS
a. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5%. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic”.
There is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. No impact. b. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as “scenic”. The project site is currently undeveloped. No impact. c. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. Less than significant impact. d. This project involves urban development typical of the area. Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime as the light generated is typical of urban development. The general area is developed and this project will infill vacant property.
Typical development standards as required by the zoning ordinance address the issue of light and glare. Less than significant impact.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a. A Farmland Conversion Study was prepared for the proposal. The project site is to change
38.09 acres from agriculture to residential land use and zoning designation. The site is currently fallow agricultural land . The project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Department of Conservation Kern County Interim -Farmland 2004, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. As of December 31, 2005, there were approximately 1.65 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (Kathe Malouf, Kern County Planning Department, personal communication October 12, 2006). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. Thus, when evaluated independently and cumulatively, this project poses no impact. b. The subject site (38.09 acres) is zoned for agricultural uses and the site is currently fallow land.
The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract . The subject site does not meet the 100 acre criteria as shown in item number II.a. above. No impact. c. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or natur e that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use. Th e project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Less than significant impact.
III. AIR QUALITY
a. An Air Quality Impact Analysis (McIntosh & Associates , October 2007 ) was prepared for the project proposal. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) encourages 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. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the SJVAPCD (page 16 and Section 6) list s various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements , related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development is consistent with these listed strategies. According to the SJVAPCD rules , t his project would be subject to the full range of local ordinance and regional regulations, which
ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. The Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project proposal has determined that the project will not interfere with adopted Air Quality standards, with the recommended mitigation measures . Therefore, there are n o significant impacts noted as implementation of existing ordinances and rules will reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 2 6, table 4-1 of the Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, N Ox 10 tons /year (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4 -2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the San Joaquin Valley including the City of Bakersfield and a re regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM 10 impacts to less than significant. Also, additional mitigation measures were recommended by the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project and are recommended as part of the project. c. The project will not incre ase any criteria pollutant beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. Under GAMAQI guidelines, any proposed project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. The project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant since there are no individual significant adverse air quality related effects. The impact is regarded as less than significant.
d. According to the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project, the project will not cause one or more streets at one or more intersections within the general project area to be reduced to a Level of Service (LOS) E or F; nor will it substantially worsen an existing LOS F on one or more streets or intersections within the general project area. A CO or Hot Spots analysis was not warranted for this project and therefore, was not performed. The record does not find that this project creates any pollutant “hot spot” that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential “hot spots” are located at intersections which a re “severely” congested. There fore by definition no significant pollutant “hot spot” impacts are identified for this project. Less than significant impact. e. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors.
This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor proble ms (please refer to the list on page 27, table 4 -2, of the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Less than significant impact.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, respectively , and Incidental Take Permit PRT -786634 and associated Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said documents hereby incorporated by reference) . Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading in areas of known dens . With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
For areas having Bakersfield Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizards, p rior to land disturbance , the applicant is required to determine the presence of Blunt -Nosed Leopard Lizards and mitigate accordingly.
b. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is wit hin the MBHCP area. The MBHCP, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, includes ordinance requirements for all development projects in the HCP area. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level.
c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a significant impact on any wetlands.
d. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corri dor in the MBHCP), or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. The record d oes support a finding that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No Impact. e. The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and, therefore, will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. Less than significant impact. f. There are n o other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources; see answer to IV.e. above.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. There are no structures on the site . A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the site was prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. The Survey indicates that there are no structures on site that eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.) and therefore, is not an issue for the project site . There are no resources on or near the project site that are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code .
There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No Impact.
b. The Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield has reviewed the existing literature for archaeological resources and reported that the project will not have a significant impact on archaeological resources. Again, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the project that did not identify archaeological resources on site. Mitigation measures , found on page 1 of this document, are recommended for the project to reduce impacts to less than significance. c. The project site is not located in northeast Bakersfield, the only known unique paleontological resource area within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
Topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No significant impacts are noted. d. The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work would be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. Mitigation measures are recommended for the project to reduce impacts to less than significance.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are 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 Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction and landslides.
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 (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, b ecause of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard.
a.ii. See answer to VI.a.i.
a.iii. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground water combined with high potential seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to V I.a.i. a.iv. See answer to VI.a.i.
b. The soil types prevalent on the proposed site are listed in the unpublished Soil Survey o f Kern County, California, South western Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service ). The project site includes soil typ e of Kimberlina fine sandy loam (30 acres) and of Cajon sandy loam overblown (8 acres). Due to the characteristics of the on -site soil types and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems or limit the use of septic systems . The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. No significant impact.
c. See answers to VI.a.i. and VI.a.ii. In addition, t he Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. No significant impact.
d. See answer to VI.b.
e. See answer to VI.b.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. The record does not indicate that this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. b. See answer to VII.a.
c. The record does not support a finding that this project or this category of projects has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous emissions at a level which is potentially significant.
d. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No significant impact is identified. e. The project site is not located within an area subject to the land use restrictions within the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (1996) (ALUCP) which covers all of Kern County. No significant impact.
f. See answer to VII.e.
g. The proposed project , typical of other developments in the Bakersfield area, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Jan.1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident . 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. No significant impact is noted. h. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No significant impacts are identified.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements , which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. No significant impact is identified.
b. The proposed development will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All w ater
companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is not regarded as significant. c. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, existing drainage patterns will not be altered to a significant degree . All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on -site and off -site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. No significant impact is identified. d. See answer to VIII.c.
e. See answer to VIII.c.
f. See answer to VIII.a.
g. The project does not propose housing within a 100 -year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No significant impact is noted. h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact is noted.
i. The project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area, but not the 100 -year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII -2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan (Safety Element). However, chances of loss, injury and/or death are so remote (the worst case scenario is one event in more than 10,000 years - source: Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). j. The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mud flow. No significant impact is noted.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern that does not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan Area . No significant impact is noted. See Table 1 below that shows the existing land uses and zoning of adjacent properties.
TABLE 1
LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES
LOCATION LAND USE
DESIGNATION ZONE DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE
NORTH LR R-1 Fallow Agriculture
SOUTH R-IA A Agriculture
EAST LR R-I Grape Vineyards
WEST LR & R-IA R-1 & R-1/PUD New High School (Independence) under construction
Land Use Designations Zoning Districts
R-IA - Resource – Intensive Agriculture A - Agriculture Zone LR - Low Density Residential R-1 - One Family Dwelling Zone R-I/PUD - One Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development
b. The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. No significant impacts are noted. c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. There has not been any known oil exploration and production occurring on the project site. No Impact noted.
b. See answer to X.a.
XI. NOISE
a. Development of the project site will not expose persons or generate noise in excess of those standards found in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan . The impact is not regarded as significant.
b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration or noise. No significant impacts are noted.
c. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation will result in a 20 -decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space. In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The project is not anticipated to expose people to severe noise levels and existing ordinance requirements will reduce noise impacts to less than significant. d. Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels has not been found to be significant.
e. See answer to VII.e.
f. This project is not located within the vicinity ( 5,000 feet ) of any private airstrip and therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Less than significant impact.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2.
TABLE 2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PROPOSED
LAND USE DWELLING UNITS PERSONS PER
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION
Single Family 172 du 3.01 517
Multifamily 0 du 2.77 0
TOTALS 172 du N/A 517
Source: 2000 Federal Census
b. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existin g urban development . Less than significant impact.
c. The project site is currently undeveloped with no structures. No significant impacts are noted. d. The project would not result in the displacement of homes. No significant impacts are noted.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The projected increase of approximately 517 new residents and 172 new structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out.
Current City Police services standards require 1.32 officers for every 1,000 people in the City.
The projected increase of 517 new residents into the City may necessitate the addition of law
enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
c. The proposed development could produce 172 dwellings units and generate approximately 1 45 school age children as indicated in Table 3. This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However , existing school im pact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant.
TABLE 3
SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION
TYPE AND NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS
ELEMENTARY
K - 8
HIGH SCHOOL
9 - 12 TOTAL PUPILS
Single Family
172 units 172 x 0.62 = 106 172 x 0.23 = 39 145
Duplex
(b) units N/A x 0.39 N/A x 0.14 N/A
Multifamily
(c) units N/A x 0.31 N/A x 0.17 N/A
Mobile Home
(d) units N/A x 0.34 N/A x 0.12 N/A
TOTALS 106 39 145
Source: 2000 Federal Census; Student Generation Rates - 2003 Kern County Office of Education
d. The project proposes a population increase of 517 persons and may result in an impact upon the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Total park acreage estimated for the project is 1.29 acres. In addition, e very residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits.
Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. The impact is not considered significant.
e. Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.
XIV. RECREATION
a. See answer to Parks, (XIII.d.).
b. See answer to Parks, (XIII.d.).
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. A Traffic Impact Study has been prepared for the project (McIntosh & Associates, November 2006). The trip generation analysis prepared for the project indicates that the project would generate approximately 129 AM peak hour trips and 174 PM peak hour trips, with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,679.
TABLE 5
PROJECT TRAFFIC
PM Peak Hour/AM Peak Hour/Daily Traffic
Land Use
Acres
Density
D.U.’s/AC
D.U.’s
ITE
Code
Rate
Peak
Hour
Trips
Split
In
Split
Out
Single Family Residential
PM
38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 1 174 111 63
AM
38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 2 129 32 97
ADT
38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 3 1679 840 840
Source: Traffic Study, prepared by McIntosh & Associates, November 2006.
Note 1: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln(x) + 0.53 and Average Rate: (T) =
1.01 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.
Note 2: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.700(x) + 9.43 and Average Rate: (T) = 0.751 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.
Note 3: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.920 Ln(x) + 2.71 and Average Rate: (T) =
9.57 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.
The traffic impact study found that the project has the potential to significantly impact at several intersections and roadway segments. However, the study also found that if certain mitigation measures are proposed for the project, the impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. The subject int ersections and roadway segments as well as proposed mitigation measures are described in the traffic study prepared for the project. b. See answer to XV.a.
c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No impact. d. All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No significant impact noted. e. The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency’s ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No significant impact noted. f. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided.
No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been identified. g. The project is anticipated to be consistent with any policies or programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impact fees which in part are used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No significant impact.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. This project will be connected to sanitary city sewer when annexed to the City of Bakersfield and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No potential significant impacts have been identified.
b. The proposed development w ould not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. c. Almost all new development require s the construction of new storm water facilitie s, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. d. The proposed development w ould not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. The site is within the California Water Service District. Expansion of water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
e. The City of Bakersfield will be the waste water treatment provider upon completion of the annexation and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project.
No significant impact is noted.
f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No significant impact is noted.
g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVI. f. No significant impact is noted.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2801permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. b. As described in the response above, the proposal has no significant impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow for the development of residential uses. c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\03_Complete\2007\07-1874\ND\ND-1874.doc Page 20 of 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST
1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003.
2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002.
3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002.
4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991
5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994.
6. Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern.
7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
8. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000.
10. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002, as updated.
11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by: David Taussig & Associates.
12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.
13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan.
14. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan.
15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey.
16. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996.
17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella.
18. Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR.
19. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).
20. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
22. Air Quality Impact Analysis, For Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M. Portion of the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, October 2007.
23. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, for Steve Antongiovanni, City of Bakersfield, California, Prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, April 2006.
24. Traffic Impact Study, for Antongionvanni Property, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, November 2006.
25. Farmland Conversion Study for Property Located North of McCutchen Road, between Old River Road and Progress Road, prepared by McIntosh & Associates, August 2006.
R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY
BERKSHIRE RD PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
P
LR LR
R-IA
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LI
MC
LR
HMR
LI
R-IA
GC
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
R-IAR-IA
HMR
R-IA
LMR
LR
SI
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
OC
R-IA
LR
MC CUTCHEN RD
GOSFORD RD
BUENA VISTA RD
OLD RIVER RD
PROGRESS RD
GREEN RD
M
OUNTAIN VISTA DR
OLD RIVER RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703
R-IA TO LR
R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY
BERKSHIRE RD PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
R1
A A
R-1
A
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
A
R-1
A
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.
A
R-2
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.
R-1R-1
R-1
R-2/P.U.D.
M-1
C-2/P.C.D.
R-1/P.U.D.
C-2/P.C.D.
M-3
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.
R-1
R-1
C-2
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.
R-1
R-1
C-2/P.C.D.
C-1
R-1
MC CUTCHEN RD
GOSFORD RD
BUENA VISTA RD
OLD RIVER RD
PROGRESS RD
GREEN RD
M
OUNTAIN VISTA DR
OLD RIVER RD
ZONE CHANGE 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703
A TO R-1