S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 1 of 39
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield ’s Development Services Department, Planning Division , has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed p roject, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 23-0560
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: March 30, 2026
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: April 28, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required) :
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’ Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).
Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
2. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plan ts and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project-related activity.
a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization.
b. If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non- raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriat e based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).
0 BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF ?)wtdJ/Wj ~
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 2 of 39
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
3. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the p roject site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
4. If buried paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological res ource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.
5. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safe ty Code Section 7050.5© shall guide Native American consultation.
Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 3 of 39
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Pr
oject (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 23-0560
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. P roject Location: The project is located at 9737 Ashe Road, generally located at the southwest corner Taft Highway and Ashe Road, within a 24.86-acre parcel (APN: 184-260-09), in southwest Bakersfield, California.
5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh and Associates Attn: Isabella Herrera
10800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 103
Bakersfield, CA 93311
6. General Plan Designation: HMR (High Medium Residential)
7. Zoning: R-2 (Small Lot 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.):
McIntosh and Associates (applicant), representing ATG Investment LLC (property owner), is proposing a commercial development and higher-density residential. The Project would consist of five (5) commercial pads at the northeast corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road, and multi-family residential to the south of the proposed commercial development.
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the land use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan) from HMR (High Medium Residential) to HR (High Residential) on
18.50 acres and GC (General Commercial on 6.36 acres;
2. Zone Change (ZC) from an R- 2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling) to R -3 (Medium Density Multi- Unit Dwelling) on 18.50 acres and R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling) to C- 2 (General Commercial on 6.36 acres.
The
project involves developing a 24,323-s quare-foot multi-tenant commercial center on 6.36 acres and 499 low-rise apartments on 18.50 acres.
9. Env
ironmental Setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The proposed project site is on approximately 25 acre parcel that is vacant and undeveloped.
Surrounding properties to the north is an outdoor sports recreation center, the east, is zoned C-1 and R-1
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 4 of 39
and is undeveloped , and the property to the west has truck parking and single -family dwellings . The parcel to the south is an undeveloped residential parcel.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services Department
Public Works Department
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance.
California Water Service Bakersfield
District
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 6 of 39
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 p roject-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and ad equately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a re ference 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\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 7 of 39
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located within C ity limits at the southwest corner of Ashe Road and Taft Highway. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project is undeveloped residential to the south, single-family residential and truck and trailer parking to the west, an outdoor recreation center to the north, and undeveloped residential to the east. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies . The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction . The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of residential and commercial uses at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the p roject site.
Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017) , located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described , the project site consists of and is surrounded by undeveloped land. 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 MBGP as being visually 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 8 of 39
important or designated “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas, 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 p roject would be required to comply with C ity development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. The refore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not designated by the California Department of Conservation as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the p roject would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 9 of 39
b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, meaning it is not an agricultural zone and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for residential uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the p roject site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the p roject are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest.
e. Less-than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project proposes residential and commercial uses in an area designated for urban development by the General Plan. T hough the immediate adjacent area is designated for urban development there are ongoing agricultural uses as legal- non-conforming uses in proximity to the project, which would not experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. In addition, t here are no forestlands in proximity to the project that would experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 10 of 39
Basin (SJVAB). 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.
The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10)
and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The SJVAB is also classified as an extreme nonattainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM 2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM 10 standards.
The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and from other stationary sources. 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 regulations and policy that require compliance with air quality strategies for new 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 n Air Quality (AQ) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analyses Letter Report , provided by Trinity Consultants 2024, was completed for the p roject. The AQIA 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 table below, the SJVAPCD has established the following specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance:
Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Emissions (tons/year)
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Emissions
(tons/year)
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions
(tons/year)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
VOC 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.
Construction of the p roject would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment, as well as vehicle traffic, grading, 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 11 of 39
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 the implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures under Regulation VIII – PM10 Fugitive Prohibitions – would be used during construction.
The following table provides the estimated construction emissions from the project:
Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Unmitigated
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.88 0.31 0.01
2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 .43 0.31 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.88 0.31 0.01
Mitigated
2025 0.37 2.23 4.39 0.68 0.23 0.01
2026 1.93 1.13 2.68 0.43 0.13 0.00
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.93 2.23 4.39 0.68 0.23 0.01
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.
As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold 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 post-project operational emissions from the project:
Non-Permitted Post-Project (Operational) Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.73 3.58 39.02 0.11 10.88 2.79
Area 2.58 0.03 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.04 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.06 0.06
Water - - - - - -
Waste - - - - - -
Refrig. - - - - - -
Total Emissions 6.35 4.31 41.98 0.11 10.94 2.84
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Trinity Consultants 2024.
As shown in the above table, post-project operational emissions are not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the p roject would not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. 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. Under the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI , any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 12 of 39
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. The following table shows the project’s contribution to cumulative emissions calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB:
2025 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Kern County. And SJVAB Emissions Inventory Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 6.35 4.31 10.94
Kern County 24,645 12,556 14,089
SJVAB 110,997 55,334 98,112
Proposed Project Percent of Kern County 0.029% 0.034% 0.078% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.006% 0.008% 0.011%
Kern County Percent of SJVAB 19.50% 22.69% 14.36%
Source: CARB 2024b
As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern County and the greater SJVAB. The project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration ) and does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions. Therefore, the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
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).
This project would also be required, when applicable, to follow air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which include, but are not limited to, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), each of which is discussed below.
SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control Offi cer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from APCO prior to commencing construction on the project.
SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved by using mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source pollution is granted. The project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 13 of 39
SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.
SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X) and
particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold for developing more than 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.
Accordingly, the project must reduce a portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on- site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NO
X and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NO
X and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions pursuant to this rule include, but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NO X and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an off -site emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off -site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project.
Because the air quality modeling indicates that the 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 in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, b ased on these anticipated activity levels, the p roject construction activities would not exceed construction thresholds, and impacts are less than significant.
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 associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.
The project is located near the southwest corner of Taft Highway and Ashe Road. The nearest sensitive receptor s are residential uses of single -family residential tracts and multiple-family dwellings, with the nearest being a single-family residence located east adjacent to the p roject site. The nearest school is Ridgeview High School and Panama Elementary School , northeast of the project. There are no other known hospitals or nursing homes within a one -mile radius. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor via prolonged exposure to air pollutants 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 14 of 39
(Trinity Consultants 2024). Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed project consists of residential and commercial retail development that does not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI or exceed any thresholds, based on SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds. Furthermore, the project’s emissions estimates do not indicate that it would adversely impact surrounding receptors ( Trinity Consultants 202 4).
Therefore, the p roject would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.
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 special-status wildlife species. Field surveys identified one natal San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) den complex, two “known” SJKF complexes, and one potential den within the study area. Consequently, direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a protected 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 15 of 39
species, are expected because of project development. Removal of natal and “known” SJKF dens requires formal state and federal authorization.
While the project was not included in the southwest focus area for the Tipton kangaroo rat under previous conservation plans, and recent modeling (Cypher 2021) ranks the site outside of primary suitability tiers, suitable habitat (Rank 4) exists approximately 0.5 miles east. Trapping would be required to confirm the presence or absence of small mammal species on -site.
The project is subject to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA). To ensure compliance, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required to determine specific Avoidance and Mitigation Measures for take authorization.
Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, 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 2025). This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species . Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the proposed, modified project site (Pruett 2025). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.
d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified during the literature search or field study. The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. However, the project site and its immediate vicinity may provide nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.
While no active nursery sites were observed during the site visit, there is potential for migratory birds to nest on or near the site in the future. To ensure the protection of these species and maintain compliance with the MBTA, the project will be subjec t to specific avoidance and survey protocols during the nesting season.
Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure 2, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 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. No impact. There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies.
Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 16 of 39
f. No impact. The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A pedestrian field survey was completed for the project site by a qualified cultural resources specialist from Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates . A records search for the site and the surrounding area was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024). Upon the completion of this survey, it was determined that there are no historical resources on-site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project site has no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites present (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024 ).
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 if 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 , making impacts less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains present at the Project site (Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates 2024) . 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 , making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 17 of 39
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. The applicant is proposing two separate projects, a commercial retail development and multiple-family residential development project . Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other commercial and 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 commercial and 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 and nonresidential 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 impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. The City does not have an adopted plan 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 C ity encourages applicants /developers to go beyond the required standards and engage in programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants/developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 18 of 39
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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the p roject to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan , major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge -Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning are a involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the p roject 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 inc reased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
~
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 19 of 39
is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed 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 soils. However, the proposed development entails paving over these soils with impervious surfaces, meaning the project site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. In addition, the relatively low precipitation that occurs in the p roject 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 soils are well drained does not make the site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, t he soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.
Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping and the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use has been conditionally approved by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield District (the District).
The site has been considered by the District against its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.
Therefore, the project has already been considered in the groundwater analysis in the UWMP and would not exacerbate subsidence in the area beyond the baseline condition.
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low -density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and C ity ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the p roject would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, making impacts less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site, primarily fine sandy loams, do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and C ity ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 20 of 39
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 wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene -age deposits. Therefore, the project would not indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource, and impacts are less than significant.
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 4, 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 implementation of the Project would generate short -term increases in air emissions from construction activities that would occur as a result of the proposed development. The major construction activities that would occur include site preparation and grading, excavation, earthmoving, and grading for construction of utilities, on -site and off- site roads, parking areas, residence foundations, and landscaping, housing construction, asphalt paving of on-site roadways, and application of architectural coatings. The construction activities would generate dust emissions primarily from soil disturbance; exhaust emissions from construction equipment and motor vehicle operation; and the release of emissions during the finishing phase including paving and the application of architectural coatings. The construction activities that would occur off-site could include delivery of building materials and supplies to the sites and the transport of construction employees to and from the sites. The construction activities would vary substantially day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operations, and the climatic conditions.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 21 of 39
The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions due to construction activities as a result of the Project with “business as usual” conditions (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). The construction activities for the Project would generate a maximum of 1,065 metric tons per year of CO2e of GHG emissions. This represents 0.00017 percent of the 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e) (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). Therefore, the short term GHG emissions as a result of the Project will be less than significant.
It is anticipated that the operation of the Project would have the potential to result in long -term increases in air emissions that would generate GHGs that could contribute to global climate change. The majority of the long -term GHG emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. Area source emissions would result from fuel combustion, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products.
The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions due to mobile source emissions and area source emissions as a result of the Project with “business as usual” conditions (EnviroTech Consultants, 2023). The operation of the Project based on “business as usual” conditions” would result in 5,835 metric tons per year of CO2e of GHG emissions. This represents 0.00075 percent of the CO2e of 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e) (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). Therefore, the long term GHG emissions as a result of the operation of the proposed project will be less than significant also.
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 as described in VIII.a. The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
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?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 22 of 39
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 a commercial center and multiple -family residential, and therefore, does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the hazardous Material 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 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.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response IX.a. The p roject 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 , making impacts less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The Air Quality Analysis 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 (EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. 2023). As mentioned above, the p roject would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations with respect to the handling of hazardous materials, making impacts less than significant.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 202 3) and Cortese (CalEPA 202 3) 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. The refore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 23 of 39
e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3 miles northeast. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. The 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 temporary road closures. The p roject 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 p roject is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is consistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials A rea Plan (Bakersfield 1997).
This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan , making impacts 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 2022). 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 p roject site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. 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, making impacts 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?
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 24 of 39
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground -disturbing activities that would temporarily disturb and potentially loosen soil s. H owever, 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 p roject’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 despite operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the p roject site . Therefore, b y complying with the MS4 Permit, the p roject would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, making impacts less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Currently, there are no irrigation water rights from a local water district associated with the p roject site . Potable water for the site would be supplied by the C ity of Bakersfield District who has provided a Will- Serve letter for the project, which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, 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 the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, making impacts 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. The project’s impact is less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line streams or other surface water features; therefore, the proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 25 of 39
The site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on-site (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.), which would reduce percolation of water in to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentration s. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site. However, the p roject would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 Permit during operation. To comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan that avoids on- and off-site flooding, erosion, and siltation problems.
The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, making impacts less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. 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 off-site. Therefore, the project’s impact is less than significant.
f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on - and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff , making impacts less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the p roject site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project would not impede or redirect flood flows, making impacts less than significant.
h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1 -percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.
The site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there were a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short -term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The C ity would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due 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, making impacts 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 the surrounding area. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, making impacts less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 26 of 39
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.
The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the development of 38 residential units adjacent to existing residential development. The development of the proposed project will not impede existing or future movement or development of the City.
b. No impact. The project is consistent with both the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to , the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022 b). Therefore, the p roject 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 ER ( Estate Residential ) and SR (Suburban Residential). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the p roject would not result in the loss of availability 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 27 of 39
of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. 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 the transport of construction equipment and materials to the p roject site, as well as 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 p roject 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 levels during grading would be less than 70 dBA, which would not exceed the hourly noise level standard for the nearest sensitive uses.
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 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekends.
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of residential land uses, which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Stationary operational noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the daytime and nighttime hourly noise level standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively.
Project-related operational traffic would have very small noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site. 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.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 28 of 39
Considering the above points, t he project would not generate a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the p roject that are in excess of the standards established in the local G eneral Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground -borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground -borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed residential development would not generate ground -borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not result in the generation of excessive ground -borne vibrations or ground -borne noise, making impacts 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 p roject 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 impact. The project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of a new commercial shopping center and new residential units. The project is adjacent to existing and planned residential development 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 accommodates this 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.
b. Less than significant impact. The proposed project site undeveloped residential. 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\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 29 of 39
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i
mpacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population 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 Kern County.
A p otential increase in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. The p roject would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. Therefore, the 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 via property taxes generated by this development. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 30 of 39
iii. Less than significant impact. The Project is growth accommodating and therefore, the need for additional schools can be paid for by existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions 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 schools.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project is growth accommodating and therefore, may cause the need for additional recreational opportunities. However, residential projects are required to follow the parkland requirements that are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of issuance of building permits. Compliance with Municipal Code 15.80 park acreage dedication and the park development fee ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards to accommodate the increased population. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of ne w or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
v. Less-than-significant impact. The project and any potential new development of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. This potential increase can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities. Therefore, the 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 p roject increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 31 of 39
b. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The p roject would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated . 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 numerous 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 the 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 p roject may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the p roject is built, it would not result in any permanent traffic-related effects.
A Trip Generation letter was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition ), along with the proposed site plans. It was determined that the p roject has been designed in accordance with C ity development standards, and appropriate standard conditions of approval have been assigned to the project. The conditions include the dedication and improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, and pedestrian access. Also, Mitigation Measure 6 will require the applicant to participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development. Overall, t he project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 32 of 39
b. Less-than-significant impact. 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 (VMT) 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 VMT 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, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity p rojects, 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 r egional 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 VMT for the project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many p rojects, 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 VMT, 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 VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT 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 traffic analysis concluded that 500 trips per day is a reasonable threshold to cause less than significant VMT. Since the GPA/ZC only generates 319 trips per weekday and 173 trips per Saturday, it falls below this threshold. The VMT’s and Trips generated by this expected project are not significant and do not meet a threshold to require further study.
c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division to meet accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards. The p roject is within City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations, and it would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, making impacts 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 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 33 of 39
(e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from the Public Works Department. 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 C ity 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, making impacts 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 landsc ape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. 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.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XVIII.a. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance on -site. The p roject 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, making impacts less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 34 of 39
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the p roject’s Projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of general manufacturing 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 c iting protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment. 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, making impacts less than significant.
b. Less-than-significant impact. The project is within the City of Bakersfield Water Resources service area. The City has provided a letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP that accounts for normal, dray, and multiple dry years (City of Bake rsfield 2022). Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
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 14.7 MGD (Bakersfield 20 23).
WWTP No. 3 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. As a result, it has been determined that 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 35 of 39
the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated because of the project would be disposed of at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.
In accordance with City standards which are designed to achieve s tate 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. T herefore, the p roject would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid wast e disposal needs , making impacts 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, making impacts less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose p roject
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 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 p roject 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 p roject would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, making impacts less than significant.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 36 of 39
b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the p roject is not located in or near s tate 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 s 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. 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, making impacts less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield City limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc ., to support the development of this project. 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 en vironment, making impacts less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate risk to high-risk area for wildfires. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes, making impacts 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. 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 1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 37 of 39
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, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated .
b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said p roject has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the p roject were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any p roject- specific or site-specific potential impacts, making impacts 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, making impacts less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1:1
~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 38 of 39
REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.
Bakersfield. 1999. Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.
Available: < https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/943/Subdivision-Engineering-Design-Manual > Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:
<http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/sewer/wastewater_treatment_plants.htm>.
Accessed: February 4, 2026.
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.
Available: < https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and- mitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >.
Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
April.
CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS.
Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2023. EnviroStor.
Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Findlaw. 2015. Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Available: < https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1719578.html >.
Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.
Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/jsp-uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf >.
Accessed: February 4, 2026.
Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November. -~ ~
BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2023\23-0560_Taft & Ashe_Housing&Commercial\03_CEQA\MND\IS_MND_GPA_23-0560_Draft.docxx Page 39 of 39
Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-and- code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: February 4, 2026.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting. 2025. Biological Resource Evaluation, General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Assessor Parcel Number 184-260-09 CA. January .
Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. 2024. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Southwest Corner Of Taft Highway And Ashe Road, Bakersfield, California. December.
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. 2025. Traffic Study GPA/ZC Southwest Corner o f Taft Highway (SR 119) & Ashe Road. December.
Trinity Consultants. 2024. Air Quality Impact Analysis. Taft Hwy and Ashe Rd Commercial Development.
December.
-~ ~
BAKERSFIELD