HomeMy WebLinkAboutApp-A_SR99_Hosking_NOP_110414Appendix A
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and
Comments Received during Scoping
Notice of Preparation
TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
The City of Bakersfield (City) will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the implementation of the SR 99/Hosking Commercial
Center Project (GPA/ZC 13-0417). Agencies: We request the view of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities and interests in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering any required permits issued by your agency or when authorizing other approvals for the project.
Organizations and Interested Parties: Comments and concerns regarding the environmental issues associated
with construction and buildout of this project are requested from organizations and individuals. CEQA requires a 30-day public review of the notice of preparation. The public review period is scheduled to begin on November 5,
2014 and close on December 4, 2014. Because of the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be received no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please indicate a contact person in your response and
send response to the following:
Cecelia Griego, Associate Planner II Community Development Department
Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301 cgriego@bakersfieldcity.us
Fax: (661) 852-2136
A public scoping meeting will be held on November 18, 2014, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the City of
Bakersfield Community Development Department Conference Room, 2nd Floor, at 1715 Chester Avenue. All
parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information that they believe should be addressed in the
EIR.
PROJECT TITLE: SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (GPA/ZC 13-0417).
PROJECT LOCATION: The SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (proposed project) is located on approximately 80 acres in southeast Bakersfield. The proposed project site is bordered by State Route 99 (SR 99) to
the west, Berkshire Road to the north, South H Street to the east, and Hosking Avenue to the south. The proposed project site is adjacent to all of these roads. Figure 1 shows the proposed project’s vicinity.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and concurrent Zone Change (ZC) for a regional retail commercial center as well as EIR Certification. Other entitlements also requested include a change to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element to
delete the southerly extension of Colony Street from Berkshire Road to South H Street, tentative/final subdivision map approval, preliminary site plan review/planned commercial development plan approval, and Greenfield County
Water District annexation. The proposed GPA would designate the project area from Low-Density Residential (LR), Low Medium-Density Residential (LMR), and High Medium-Density Residential (HMR) to General
Commercial (GC). The proposed ZC would convert the One Family Dwelling (R-1) zone classification to Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development (C-2/PCD). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the proposed land use
designation and zone changes, respectively. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed change to the circulation element.
Kern DeltaPark
Arvin Edison Canal
Kern Island Canal
West
Branch
Can
al
Kyner Ave
Hughes Ln
Adelaide AveMidas St
Claire
St
Betty St
VIA
Lucca
Colony St
Dolfield Ave
Jerry
St
Alberta St
Jonah St
Fairview Rd
C
a
mpagnoniSt
Hosking Rd Hosking Ave
DennenSt
C
a
s
t
leford
St
Big Bear St
Nadeau St
Mckee Rd
Monitor St
Bit
St
Shannon
Dr
Millfort
St
Candace Av e
Faith Ave
Arkwood
AveCrescent Ridge St
Lisa Ct
Clipper Hills Dr
Trentino Ave
Krista St
Walton Dr
Brazil Ave
Lowry St
Chester W Nimitz St
O neill Ave
Camp
St
Fiesta Ave
Ivy Trae Ln
Opal
St
G
w
e
n
d
o
l
y
n
S
t
GiovanettiAve
Jervis Ct
Costa St
Mornington Ave
Hudson Dr
Canyon Ct
Astor Ave
Charterten Ave
Bridle Ave
Bathurst Ave
Lenz Ct
PhyllisSt
Li n nell Way
Aim Ave
Monique Ave
Evadonna RdHadarRd
Gasoline Alley Dr
Dublin Dr
Hudson Pl
J um buck Ln
Stirrup Ave
Bridget Ave
Brisbane Ave
Auto Mall Dr
Ramos Ave
Nicholas
St
Macau St
Curnow Rd
Quartz Hill Rd
Stable Ave
Boyd St
Eubanks Ave
Berkshire Rd
Sierra Meadows Dr
Viola St
Yvonne St
Harris Rd
S H St
Avon Ave
Chevalier Rd
Wible Rd
Stub Oak Ave
Southland Ct
Harris Rd
S H
St
Taft Hwy
P ana ma Ln
Wible Rd
ST119
ST99
PumpkinPumpkinCenterCenter
Figure 1Project LocationSR 99/Hosking Commerical Center Project
±
Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012)
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
Ventura
SantaBarbara
San LuisObispo
TulareKings
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Bakersfield\00393_14\mapdoc\Fig01_Project_Location.mxd Date: 10/9/2014 25119
Project Location
Figure 2 General Plan Amendment
SR
9
9
/
H
o
s
k
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Bakersfield\00393_14\mapdoc
30
25
3136
3130
3625
3025
ARELI ST
VINCENSOWAY
BE
R
K
SH
I
RE
R
D
BIG BEAR ST
RIS
I
N
G
M
I
ST
LN
SHADED
CANYONPL
ONACT
WHISENANT ST
PREMIER AVE
TA
O
S
W
AY
AM
B
E
R
CA
N
Y
O
N
P
L
BOUL
DE
R
R
ID
G
E LN
NELLIECT
PAR
A
DIS
E P
OIN
T
PL
CA
N
D
A
C
E
A
V
E
GR
A
N
IT
E
RID
G
E
PL
STONEY
PEAKLN
CL
I
P
PER
H
IL
LS D
R
VIC
E
R
O
Y
AV
E
SIL
V
E
R
S
HO
R
E
LN
AEGEAN AVE
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
R
I
D
GE S
T
BA
L
A
N
C
E
R
OCK
LN
SOS
A
D
R
QUEST ST
GR
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
LN
MA
R
C
H
A
VE
PA
R
AD
I
S
E
PO
I
N
T
P
L
LA
C
O
R
T
E PL
SORIA VIEW AVE
EAGL
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
PL
ZERMATT ST
MA
C
A
U
S
T
MARMARA AVE
CRE
S
T
LINE
F
A
L
LS LN
TREELINEAVE
GRANITE PEAK ST
TR
O
PIC
A
L
A
V
E
SOPHIA
ST
JERRYST
KIR
KWO
O
D
A
V
E
GRANDHAVENLN
FELBRIDGE CT WUTHERINGHEIGHTS AVE
HAYDEN HILL ST
ZITA MARIEST ALBORANST
JA
NU
A
R
Y D
R
SLIDERDR
SOLSONAAVE
STARAZALEAWAY
DUSK WAY
EUSKARAST
STENGELWAY
EV
A
D
O
N
N
A
RD
WILLO
W BASIN
L
N
TR
E
N
T
INO
A
V
E
VA
L
L
A
R
T
A
V
I
E
W
AVE
TRAILCREST ST
HAYDEN HILL ST
SAND DUNE STGRANITEDOME ST
GREENLAND WAY
HA
D
A
R
R
D
VERONADR
GRANITE HILLS ST
BOULDERSHOREWAY
SUMMITGATE WAY
VILLARIDGEWAY
MAJESTICPINE WAY
GREY CLIFFWAY
GRANDBANK WAY
SHALLOWCOVE WAY
CALMDR
SNOWBIRD ST
MAYA ST
LITTLE VALLEY ST
RAIN
DR
MC
G
W
IR
E
CT
LE
D
G
EV
I
E
W
LN
DRIF
T
S
DR
ZIF
F
DR
GRANITE POINTE PKWY
CA
TE
S
ST
BAL
A
S
I
S
S
T
ACCA
B
A
R S
T
JOPLIN CT
TRA
P
P
E
R
S
T
MO
NAC
H
E
ME
A
DO
W
S
D
R
BADGERPASS
AVE
SIE
R
RA S
U
M
MIT
A
V
E
PARK
CITYAVE
VA
L
D
E
S
CTGENIVIEVEST
ELIT
E C
T
STA
TKO
W
SK
I
C
T
SE
P
T
EMB
E
R
DR
BAG
W
EL
L CT
QUAR
T
Z
HI
LL
R
D
HIDDEN CROSSINGCT
LUCE
R
NE
D
R
IN
TE
R
L
A
K
E
N
D
R
IN
N
S
B
R
UC
K
DR
EN
G
E
L
B
E
R
G
D
R
ARNOTT CT PARNELL CT OLSON AVE
BERK
S
HIR
E R
D
EV
ANS
WA
Y
CROSS GLADE ST
BERTINA CT BERRYESSA CT
SLATERFIELDAVE
SIERRAMEADOWSDR
ESP
E
R
A
N
Z
A
DR
TA
P
O RID
G
E
D
R
FLIN
T
HIL
L
S DR
TARSPRINGSAVE
MA
C
A
U
S
T
BASQ
U
E
H
I
LLS DR
SANTANASUNDR
COLONY PA
R
K
D
R
AS
T
O
R AV
E
CAPITANDR
COLO N Y ST
COLONY ST
SILVERDOLLARWAY
BACHELOR STIVY TRAE LN
AV
I
L
A
S
T
FI
N
C
H
WA
Y
ZE
L
D
A
WA
Y
GR
I
N
D
E
R
WA
Y
PE
G
G
Y
WA
Y
DIGGES LN
TI
F
F
E
R
CT
PY
R
I
T
E
ST
ES
T
R
E
L
A
C
T
PA
U
L
I
N
E
CT
GR
E
T
C
H
E
N
C
T
SK
Y
ME
A
D
O
W
S
WA
Y
BIS
C
U
I
T
C
T
WAYNESBOROUGHCT
DU
B
L
I
N
DRGREENFIELDPARK DR
CL
Y
D
E
S
D
A
L
E
ST
RAVENHILL ST DOMENICAST
QU
A
R
T
Z
PE
A
K
W
A
Y
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
A
I
R
WA
Y
SA
L
V
A
T
O
R
E
AV
E
LIB
B
Y
C
T
MONITOR ST SHANNON DR
BE
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
R
D
HUGHES
L
N
HOSKING
AVE
S H ST
LM
R
/
L
R
GC
GC
LM
R
LR
P
LR
LR
L
R
LR
LRLR
LR
LR LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR LR
LR LR
LR
LR
LM
R
/
L
R
LMR/LRLMR/LRLMR/LRLR
LR LRLR
LM
R
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
L
R
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LRLRLRLR
LRSR
LR
LR
LR
SR SR SR
LR
LR LR
PS
LR
LR LRLR
LRLM
R
PS PS SR/LRPSHMRLRLR
LR
LRLR
LR
LR
LR LRLR LRLR
LRLR
HM
R
HR
LM
R
LM
R
LR
LR
LR
LR
LM
R
/
L
R
LR
LM
R
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
GC
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
GC
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR LR
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LM
R
LR
LR
LRLR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LRLR
LRLR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
OS
-
P
LR
LR
GC
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Po
i
n
t
e
Pa
r
k
WEST B R A NCHCANAL
WEST BR A NC H C A N A L
KERN ISLAND CANALAR
V
I
N
-
E
D
I
S
O
N
C
A
N
A
L
Olivier Middle School Horizon Elementary School
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
P
o
i
n
t
e
Ele
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
1
3
-
0
4
1
7
-
L
A
N
D
U
S
E
Document Name: 2014_01_0705001,000Feet
CIT
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
Section 25,T30S R27E
HM
R
TO GC
LM
R
TO GC
LR TO GC
GC
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
Figure 3 Zone Change
SR
9
9
/
H
o
s
k
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Bakersfield\00393_14\mapdoc
30
25
R-1R-1
R-
1
R-1
R-
S
R-
S
R-S-1A
R-
S
R-
S
C-
1
C-
2
R-
1
R-
S
R-1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-1R-1 R-1
R-
1
R-1 R-
1
R-1
R-
1R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
/
P
.
U
.
D
.
R-1R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1R-
1
R-1R-1 R-1R-1A
R-
2
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
C-2
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
-
C
H
R-
S
R-
2
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
C-
2
/
P
.
C
.
D
.
R-
2
C-
2
/
P
.
C
.
D
.
R-
1
R-
1 R-
1
R-
2
R-
2
R-1R-1
R-
1
C-
2
R-
1 R-
1
R-
1
C-
2
R-1
R-
1 R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
C-
2
C-
2R-
1
R-
1
R-
1 R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1R-1 R-1
R-
1
R
-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
OS
R-
1
R-
1 R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1 R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-
1
R-1
C-
2
R-
1
3136
3130
3625
3025
ARELI ST
VINCENSOWAY
BERK
S
HIR
E R
D
BIG BEAR ST
RISING
M
I
S
T
L
N
SH
A
D
E
D
CAN
Y
ON
PL
TIFFER CT
PY
R
I
TE
ST
ONACT
WHISENANT ST
PREMIER AVE
ESTRELACT
TA
O
S
W
AY
AMB
ER C
A
N
Y
O
N
PL
PAULINE CT
BOUL
DE
R
RID
G
E
LN
NELLIE CT
GRETCHEN CT
PA
RA
D
I
S
E
P
O
IN
T PL
CA
N
D
A
C
E
A
V
E
GR
A
N
IT
E
R
I
D
G
E
P
L
ST
O
N
E
Y
P
E
A
K
LN
CL
IP
P
ER H
IL
L
S
D
R
VIC
E
R
O
Y
AVE
SIL
V
E
R S
H
O
R
E
L
N
AEGEAN AVE
CR
E
SCE
NT
R
I
D
G
E
S
T
BA
L
ANC
E
R
O
C
K
LN
BISCUITCT
SO
S
A
D
R
QUEST ST
GR
A
N
DV
IEW
LN
APPLE FARM CT
MAR
C
H
A
V
E
PA
RA
D
I
S
E
P
O
INT
P
L
LA
C
O
R
T
E
P
L
SORIA VIEW AVE
EA
G
L
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
P
L
WAYNESBOROUGHCT
ZERMATT ST
MA
C
A
U
S
T
MARMARA AVE
CR
E
S
T
LINE
F
A
L
LS L
N
TREELINEAVE
GRANITE PEAK ST
TRO
P
I
C
A
L
A
V
E
SOPHIAST
DUBLINDR
JERRYST
KIR
KWOO
D
A
V
E
GRAND
HAVENLN
FELBRIDGE CT GREENFIELDPARKDRWUTHERINGHEIGHTS AVE
HAYDEN HILL ST
ZITA MARIEST ALBORANST
JA
NU
A
R
Y
D
R
SLIDERDR
SOLSONAAVE
STARAZALEA
WAY
DUSK WAY
EUSKARAST
STENGEL
WAY
EV
A
D
ONNA
R
D
WIL
L
O
W
B
A
S
IN L
N
TR
E
N
T
I
NO
A
V
E
VA
L
L
A
R
TA VIEWAVE
TRAILCREST ST
HAYDEN HILL ST
SANDDUNE STGRANITEDOME ST
GREENLAND WAY
HA
D
A
R
RD
VERONADR
GRANITE HILLS ST
QUARTZ PEAK
WAY
TEMPLEROCK WAY
BOULDERSHOREWAY
SUMMITGATE WAY
VILLARIDGEWAY
MAJESTICPINEWAY
GREY CLIFFWAY
GRANDBANK WAY
SHALLOWCOVE WAY
CALMDR
SNOWBIRD ST
MAYA ST
LITTLEVALLEY ST
RAIN
DR
MC
G
W
IR
E
CT
LE
D
G
EV
I
E
W
LNDRIF
T
S
D
R
ZIF
F
D
R
GRANITE POINTE PKWY
TR
E
N
T
I
N
O
AV
E
CA
TE
S
ST
BA
L
AS
I
S S
T
ACCA
B
A
R S
T
JOPLIN CT
TR
A
P
P
E
R
S
T
MO
N
A
C
H
E
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
DR
BADGERPASS
AVE
SI
ER
RA S
U
M
MIT
A
V
E
PARK
CITYAVE
VAL
D
E
S
C
TGENIVIEVEST
ELITE C
T
STA
T
K
O
W
S
K
I
CT
SEPTE
M
BE
R D
R
BA
G
W
E
L
L
CT
QUAR
T
Z
HI
L
L R
D
HIDDEN CROSSINGCT
LU
C
E
R
NE
D
R
IN
T
E
R
L
A
K
E
N
D
R
IN
NS
B
R
UC
K
D
R
EN
GEL
B
E
R
G D
R
ARNOTT CT PARNELL CT OLSON AVE
BERK
S
H
IR
E
R
D
EV
A
N
S
W
AY
CROSS GLADE ST
BERTINA CT BERRYESSA CT
SLATERFIELDAVE
SIERRAMEADOWS
DR
ES
P
E
R
A
N
Z
A
D
R
TA
P
O
R
I
DG
E
D
R
FL
I
N
T
H
I
LL
S DR
TARSPRINGS
AVE
MA
C
A
U
S
T
BA
S
Q
UE HIL
L
S
D
R
SANTANASUNDR
COLONY PAR
K
D
R
AS
TO
R AV
E
CAPITANDR
C O L O NY S T
COLONY ST
SILVERDOLLARWAY
BACHELOR STIVY TRAE LN
FU
E
N
T
E
S
S
T
AV
I
L
A
S
T
FIN
C
H
WA
Y
ZE
L
D
A
WA
Y
GR
I
N
D
E
R
WA
Y
PE
G
G
Y
WA
Y
DIGGES LN
SK
Y
ME
A
D
O
W
S
WA
Y
CL
Y
D
E
S
D
A
L
E
ST
RAVENHILLST DOMENICAST
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
A
I
R
WA
Y
SA
L
V
A
T
O
R
E
AV
E
LIB
B
Y
C
T
MONITOR ST SHANNON DR
BE
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
R
D
HUGHES L
N
HO
S
K
I
N
G
A
V
E
S H ST
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Po
i
n
t
e
Pa
r
k
W E S TBRANCH C A N A L
WES T B R A N C H C A N A L
KERN ISLAND CANAL
AR
V
I
N
-
E
D
I
S
O
N C
ANAL
Olivier Middle School HorizonElementarySchool
Gra
n
i
t
e
P
o
i
n
t
e
Ele
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
ZO
N
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
1
3
-
0
4
1
7
Document Name: 2014_01_07zng05001,000Feet
CIT
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
Section 25,T30S R27E
R-
1
TO
C-
2
/
P
.
C
.
D
.
C-
2
TO
C-
2
/
P
.
C
.
D
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
Figure 4
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
SR
9
9
/
H
o
s
k
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Bakersfield\00393_14\mapdoc
31
36
3130
3625
30
25
$5(/,67
9,1&(162 :$<
%(5.6+,5(5'
%,*%($567
5,6,1*0,67/1
6+$'('
&$1<213/
7,))(5&7
3<5,7(67
21$&7
:+,6(1$1767
35(0,(5$9(
(67 5(/$&7
7$26:$<
$0%(5&$1<213/
3$8/,1(&7
%28/'(55,'*(
/1
1(//,(&7
*5(7&+(1&7
3$5$',6(32,173/
&$1'$&($9(
*5$1,7(5,'*(3/
6721(<3($./1
&/,33(5+,//6'5
9,&(52<$9(
6,/9(56+25(/1
$(*($1$9(
&5(6&(175,'*(67
%$/$1&(52&.
/1
%,6&8,7&7
626$'5
48(6767
*5$1'9,(:/1
$33/()$50&7
0$5&+$9(
3$5$',6(32,173/
/$&257(3/
625,$9,(:$9(
($*/(9$//(<3/
:$<1(6%2528*+&7
=(50$7767
0$&$867
0$50$5$$9(
&5(67/,1()$//6/1
75((/,1($9(
*5$1,7(3($.67
7523,&$/$9(
623+,$67
'8%/,1 '5
-(55<67
.,5.:22'$9(
*5$1'+$9(1/1
)(/%5,'*(&7 *5((1),(/'3$5.'5:87+(5,1*+(,*+76$9(
+$<'(1+,//67
=,7$0$5,(67
$/%25$1 67
-$18$5<'5
6/,'(5'5
62/621$$9(
67$5$=$/($:$<
'86.:$<
(86.$5$67
67(1*(/:$<
(9$'211$5'
:,//2:%$6,1/1
75(17,12$9(
9$//$57$9,(:$9(
75$,/&5(6767
+$<'(1+,//67
6$1''81(67*5$1,7('20(67
*5((1/$1':$<
+$'$55'
9(521$'5
*5$1,7(+,//667
48$57=3($.:$<
7(03/(52&.:$<
%28/'(5 6+25(:$<
6800,7 *$7(:$<
9,//$5,'*(:$<
0$-(67,&3,1(:$<
*5(<&/,)):$<
*5$1'%$1.:$<
6+$//2:&29(:$<
&$/0'5
612:%,5'67
0$<$67
/,77/(9$//(<67
5$,1'5
0&*:,5(
&7
/('*(9,(:
/1'5,)76'5
=,))'5
*5$1,7(32,17(3.:<
75(17,12
$9(
&$7(667
%$/$6,667
$&&$%$567
-23/,1&7
75$33(567
021$&+(0($'2:6'5
%$'*(53$66$9(
6,(55$6800,7$9(
3$5.&,7<
$9(
9$/'(6&7*(1,9,(9(67
(/,7(&7
67$7.2:6.,&7
6(37(0%(5'5
%$*:(//&7
48$57=+,//5'
+,''(1 &5266,1*&7
/8&(51('5
,17(5/$.(1'5
,116%58&.'5
(1*(/%(5*'5
$51277&7 3$51(//&7 2/621$9(
%(5.6+,5(5'
(9$16:$<
&5266*/$'(67
%(57,1$&7 %(55<(66$&7
6/$7(5),(/'$9(
6,(55$0($'2:6'5
(63(5$1=$'5
7$325,'*('5
)/,17+,//6'5
7$5635,1*6$9(
0$&$867
%$648(+,//6'5
6$17$1$681'5
&2/21<3$5.'5
$6725$9(
&$3,7$1'5
&2 /21 <67
&2/21<67
6,/9(5'2//$5:$<
%$&+(/2567,9<75$(/1
)8
(
1
7
(
6
6
7
$9
,
/
$
6
7
),1
&
+
:$
<
=(
/
'
$
:$
<
*5
,
1
'
(
5
:$
<
3(
*
*
<
:$
<
.,3
:
$
<
-(59,6&7 ',**(6/1
6.
<
0(
$
'
2
:
6
:$
<
&/
<
'
(
6
'
$
/
(
67
5$9(1+,//67 '20(1,&$67
02
8
1
7
$
,
1
$
,
5
:$
<
6$
/
9
$
7
2
5
(
$9
(
/,%
%
<
&
7
021,72567 6+$1121'5
%(5.6+,5(5'
+8 *+(6 /1
HOSKING
AVE
S H ST
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
Po
i
n
t
e
Pa
r
k
W E S T BRANCH C A NA L
WES T B R AN C H C AN A L
KERN ISLAND CANAL
ARVIN-EDISON CANAL
Olivier Middle School Horizon Elementary School
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
P
o
i
n
t
e
Ele
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
QQ
Q
QQ
Q
o
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
1
3
-
0
4
1
7
-
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
'RFXPHQW1DPH BB]QJ05001,000Feet
CIT
Y
CO
U
N
T
Y
Section 25,T30S R27E
DE
L
E
T
E
CO
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
$±(
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
INITIAL STUDY
SR 99/HOSKING COMMERCIAL CENTER
PROJECT
P REPARED FOR:
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Contact: Cecelia Griego, Associate Planner II
(661) 326‐3733
P REPARED BY:
ICF International
9775 Businesspark Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92131
Contact: Charlie Richmond, AICP, LEED AP ND
(858) 444‐3911
November 2014
ICF International. 2014. Initial Study. November. (ICF 393.14.) Irvine, CA.
Prepared for City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA.
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 1 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Contents
Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................... 2
Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................... 3
I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................... 4
II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................. 6
III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 8
IV. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 10
V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 12
VI. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 14
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 17
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 19
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 22
X. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................... 25
XI. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 26
XII. Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 27
XIII. Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 29
XIV. Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 30
XV. Recreation ..................................................................................................................................... 32
XVI. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................................. 33
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................... 35
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 37
References ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Earlier Analyses ................................................................................................................................. 40
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 2 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan
C‐2/PCD Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development Zone
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CSSHS California State Scenic Highway System
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
HMR High Medium‐Density Residential
Kern COG Kern Council of Governments
LMR Low Medium‐Density Residential
LR Low‐Density Residential
MBGP Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
MBHCP Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
mgd million gallons per day
MPO Municipal Planning Organizations
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
R‐1 One Family Dwelling
SB Senate Bill
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVUAPCD Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
SR State Route
ZC Zone Change
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 1 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title: SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (GPA/ZC 13-0417)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield Planning Division Community Development Building 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecelia Griego, Associate Planner II (661) 326-3733
4. Project Location: East of SR-99, west of South H Street, South of Berkshire, North of Hosking
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 4 J’s & R, LLC C/O Quad Knopf, Inc. Contact: Dave Dmohowski 5080 California Avenue, Suite 220 Bakersfield, CA 93309
6. General Plan Designation: LR (Low-Density Residential), LMR (Low Medium-Density Residential), and HMR (High Medium-Density Residential)
7. Zoning: R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
8. Description of Project:
The proposed regional commercial development consists of approximately 800,000 square feet of leasable retail space, 240 hotel rooms, 4,472 surface parking spaces along with internal drives, and landscaping. The commercial center would contain approximately 18 buildings in one- and two-story structures—including two anchor buildings, a cinema (60,000 square feet), and 11 restaurants (45,000 square feet total). In addition, a hotel spread over two separate facilities with approximately 240 rooms may also be a part of the proposed project. The floor area ratio would be approximately 0.25 and pervious/landscaped areas would make up about 5 % of the site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is approximately 85 acres of vacant land. Surrounding land uses include SR-99, low-medium density residential, and commercial to the west; general commercial (currently vacant) to the north; low-density residential to the east; and low-density residential (currently vacant) to the south.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Greenfield Water District (annex remainder of project site).
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 3 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief eplanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites. 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
if it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).
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.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “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 the
“Earlier Analyses” section may be cross‐referenced.)
Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental
Quality Act (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:
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.
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, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
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.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 4 November 2014
ICF 393.14
I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
outcroppings, and historic buildings along a
scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
a. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The project site is within an area that is relatively flat, does not
contain any significant landforms, and is currently vacant land. It is bordered by existing
residential development to the west and east, and State Route (SR) 99 bordering the western
portion of the project site. Land to the north and south of the project site is vacant and
undeveloped. This area is not regarded or designated as visually important or “scenic” in the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) (City of Bakersfield 2002) and is not within a
Class I or II Visual Resources Area or Viewsheds and Slope Protection Area (City of Bakersfield
2008). Additionally, development of the project would not block or preclude views to any area
containing important or what would be considered visually appealing landforms. Therefore, no
scenic vistas would be affected by the development of the project, and impacts are considered
less than significant. No further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
b. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site consists of vacant land. No
rock outcroppings are located on site. The project site is not adjacent to or near any state
highway that is designated or eligible to be listed on the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (CSSHS) (Caltrans 2014). The CSSHS
designates highways depending on the quantity of natural landscape that can be seen by
travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape from a given segment of roadway, and the extent to
which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The project site is not
within or adjacent to any such landscape. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway in Kern
County is the SR 14 extension north from Mojave to SR 395, which is about 60 miles from
Bakersfield and is obscured from view by the Piute Mountains. The SR 58 east from where it
meets the SR 14 is also an eligible State Scenic Highway in Kern County and is also about 60
miles from Bakersfield and has the same obstructions (Caltrans 2014). Therefore, impacts
associated with a state scenic highway are considered less than significant. No further
discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 5 November 2014
ICF 393.14
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of
approximately 85 acres for commercial uses in an area that is currently flat, vacant land. The
proposed improvements would add to the current suburban landscape that advances from the
City center south and beyond. The proposed project would alter the site’s conditions from that
of vacant land to commercial development, which could improve the existing site aesthetic and
the visual quality of the area, especially for travelers on SR 99 and nearby residents. This issue
will be analyzed in the EIR.
Additionally, this proposed project, in conjunction with the City‐proposed SR 99 interchange
project, could substantially increase traffic on Hosking Avenue, which could visually impact
residents, travelers, and storeowners along this road. Furthermore, the proposed project would
introduce 800,000 square feet of leasable commercial space, which may draw substantial
business from existing commercial centers in the region. This would potentially result in urban
decay if other stores close as a result of the loss of business and their buildings remain vacant
and unmaintained for extended periods of time. The MBGP requires an Urban Decay Study for
retail shopping centers proposed to be over 250,000 square feet gross leasable area in size (City
of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2002). These issues will be analyzed in the Urban Decay Study
and addressed in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the development of the
project site with commercial development. The project site is vacant and currently contains no
major sources of light. Construction of new buildings may introduce reflective materials or
lighting that could affect daytime views and generate significant amounts of daytime light or
glare.
Introduction of new lighting from the proposed project would include lights within and around
the proposed commercial buildings, lighting for surface parking lots, and security lighting on the
various structures that would be developed as part of the project. The light generated by the
project would be typical of commercial development. Nighttime light and glare generated by the
project could affect existing residential developments in the project area. Therefore, daytime
and nighttime light and glare could be considered potentially significant. This issue will be
addressed in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 6 November 2014
ICF 393.14
II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts on 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 Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts on forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
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 conflict with 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)), 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 forest land or conversion of
forest land to non‐forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, 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 as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance under the California Department of Conservation Division of
Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 7 November 2014
ICF 393.14
of Conservation 2014a). The project site is currently vacant land that may have been historically
farmed, but now has a land use designation of Low‐Density Residential (LR), Low Medium‐
Density Residential (LMR), and High Medium‐Density Residential (HMR) and is zoned One
Family Dwelling (R‐1). No impact would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the
EIR.
b. No Impact. The entire site is currently zoned R‐1 by the City of Bakersfield, which is a
residential zone designation. As part of the proposed project, a zone change from R‐1 to
Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development Zone (C‐2/PCD) is being sought.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at
least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. The purpose of the act is to preserve
agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to
urban uses. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private
landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land for use as agricultural or
related open space. The proposed project site is 85 acres in size and does not contain any land
currently under a Williamson Act Land Use Contract (California Department of Conservation
2014a). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. No further discussion is warranted in
the EIR.
c. No Impact. As discussed above in II.b, the project site is currently zoned R‐1 for residential
uses. No land zoned as forest land or timberland exists within the proposed project boundaries.
The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. No
impact would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
d. No Impact. As discussed above in II.c, no land zoned as forest land or timberland exists within
the proposed project boundaries. Approval of the proposed project would not result in the loss
of forest land or conversion of forest land to other uses. No impact would occur and no further
discussion is warranted in the EIR.
e. No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project area is not within an agricultural or
forest area. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in changes that would
result in the conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐
forest use. No impacts would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 8 November 2014
ICF 393.14
III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
When available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is a nonattainment area for an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires nonattainment
districts with severe air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in nonattainment
emissions per year. The Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) for the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin (SJVAB) in compliance with the requirements of the CCAA. The SJVUAPCD encourages
local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles.
Promulgated under the SJVUAPCD, the Guide for Assessing and Reducing Air Quality Impacts
(SJVUAPCD 2002) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts
resulting from new development. However, because the project would require a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change from residential use, development of the site for commercial uses
was not addressed within the current general plan and, consequently, was not considered by the
current AQAP. Therefore, project consistency with the applicable air quality management plan
requires additional evaluation. Also, local ordinances and the general plan contain
requirements and strategies related to project design components such as street improvements,
levels of service on roadways, and use of energy‐efficient heating and cooling systems that can
be implemented to reduce impacts on air quality. A technical report is being prepared for air
quality assessment, which will include discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable air
quality management plans. This is considered a potentially significant impact, and a detailed
evaluation of the project’s consistency with the goals and objectives of the AQAP, local
ordinances, and general plan requirements related to air quality will be provided in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 9 November 2014
ICF 393.14
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in temporary construction
and long‐term operational impacts associated with stationary‐area sources like the proposed
commercial building, and vehicle‐source emissions from travelers coming to and from the
project site. Emissions associated with project construction equipment exhaust, fugitive dust
emissions, emissions from consuming energy such as natural gas, and mobile source emissions
could exceed thresholds established by the SJVUAPCD. Therefore, impacts are considered
potentially significant. A technical report is being prepared for air quality assessment, and
potential impacts on air quality standards will be further addressed in the EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The San Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment for two criteria
pollutants: ozone and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) (SJVUAPCD
n.d.). CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects that, when considered
together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The
project may increase the level of pollutants beyond the level of significance as defined by
SJVUAPCD and by standards contained in the MBGP. The cumulative air quality effects that
could result from the proposed project would be potentially significant. A technical report is
being prepared for air quality assessment, and cumulative air quality effects will be further
evaluated in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include people within schools, daycare
centers, medical facilities, recreational facilities, and other facilities that house or provide
services for young children, elderly persons, or people with existing respiratory health
problems. The proposed project site is located on vacant land. Land adjacent to the project site
contains existing or planned development. Individuals residing within these adjacent uses could
be considered sensitive receptors. Construction activities associated with the project have the
potential to generate dust and other airborne pollutants from construction emissions. These
activities also have the potential to expose workers and current and future residents to air
emissions that would likely be produced by construction of the proposed project. This exposure
is considered a potentially significant impact. A technical report is being prepared for air quality
assessment, and a complete analysis regarding sensitive receptors will be included in the EIR.
e. No Impact. The generation of odors is generally associated with certain types of industrial and
agricultural activities, as well as dairy facilities. No industrial activities are proposed for the
project site. The nearest dairy facility is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site.
Therefore, because the project itself would not produce offensive odors, no impacts would
occur. No further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 10 November 2014
ICF 393.14
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. 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, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, 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 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. Potentially Significant Impact. The project area consists of approximately 85 acres of
undeveloped vacant land located between residential developments and vacant lots. The
project site is highly degraded, having been disked periodically, and vegetative cover has been
nearly eliminated, thereby resulting in unsuitable habitat conditions for most wildlife species.
According to the Biological Resources Evaluation (Quad Knopf 2014) prepared for the proposed
project, no sensitive habitat communities or special‐status plant species are expected to occur in
the project area. However, seven special‐status wildlife species have either a “low,” “moderate,”
or “high” potential to occur in the project area. These include the San Joaquin kit fox, American
badger, western burrowing owl, white‐tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, California horned lark, and
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 11 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Bakersfield legless lizard. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to have a
substantial adverse impacts on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status, and
further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
b. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The project site is not crossed by a natural stream or river,
either perennial or intermittent, based on the U.S. Geological Survey Gosford Quadrangle (USGS
1973). The project site is not within or adjacent to the Kern River or any other riparian (i.e.,
riverside) habitat. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the project site is highly degraded and
nearly clear of any vegetative cover, and no sensitive habitat communities or special‐status
plant species are expected to occur in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would
not have a substantial impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and
impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is warranted.
c. No Impact. No areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional
waters) or State jurisdictional waters were identified in the immediate area of the project site.
No wetlands or waterways potentially under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or California Department of Fish and Wildlife are present within, or adjacent to, the
proposed project site or the surrounding area (Quad Knopf 2014). Therefore, the proposed
project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, and no
impacts would occur. No further analysis is warranted.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The project vicinity lies within an area of low‐density
development that interfaces with low‐density residential housing to the north and open
undeveloped areas to the south and northeast. The Kern Island Canal parallels the South H
Street arterial to the east. This concrete‐lined canal and network of open vacant lots (including
the project site) likely serve as wildlife movement corridors, particularly for species such as the
San Joaquin kit fox, which has successfully adapted to urban habitat (Quad Knopf 2014).
Therefore, the proposed project could interfere with wildlife movement and result in potentially
significant impacts. Further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
e. Potentially Significant Impact. The adopted Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan (MBHCP) (County of Kern 1994) addresses biological impacts within the MBGP area. The
project site is within the boundaries of the MBHCP and, therefore, development of the proposed
project could conflict with the goals and policies of the MBHCP. Impacts are potentially
significant, and further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project is subject to the goals and
policies of the MBHCP, and development of the proposed project could potentially conflict with
those provisions. Impacts are potentially significant, and further analysis is warranted in the
EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 12 November 2014
ICF 393.14
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project site is currently vacant and there are no
known historical resources on the proposed project site. However, the potential exists for
unknown historical resources to be present on site. Archival research, review of historic maps,
and a formal records search will be conducted to determine the potential effect on historical
resources on the proposed project site. Therefore, this impact will be further evaluated in the
EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The potential exists for unknown buried archaeological
resources to either be disturbed or destroyed during site preparation and grading. A site
investigation will be performed in order to assess the actual potential for archaeological
resources within future developable areas, and a records search will be conducted at the
Archaeological Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield to locate previously
identified archaeological resources. The California Native American Heritage Commission will
be notified to assist in the identification of any ethnohistoric or culturally sensitive resources of
interest to the local Native American community. The disturbance of such resources would be
considered potentially significant; further evaluation will be provided in the EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The site has been previously disturbed, but there may still be
potential for unknown buried paleontological resources to either be disturbed or destroyed
during site preparation and grading. A records search and research into the underlying
formation will be conducted. The potential impacts will be further addressed in the EIR.
d. Less‐than‐Significant Impact. There is a potential for inadvertent discovery of human remains
during grading and earthmoving activities. The California Native American Heritage
Commission will be notified in an effort to identify any ethnohistoric or culturally sensitive
resources of interest to the local Native American community, and local Native American groups
will also be consulted. In the event that human remains are encountered, further excavation or
disturbance would be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code. If Native American remains were identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 13 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code provide specific measures for
addressing the remains and preventing any impacts on the remains. Impacts are considered less
than significant, but more detailed discussion on the existing laws will be included in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 14 November 2014
ICF 393.14
VI. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1. 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.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
3. Seismic‐related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4. 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 an
onsite or offsite 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 risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems in areas where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Discussion:
a1. No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not
within a delineated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake fault zone (California Department of Conservation
2014b). The nearest Fault Rupture Hazard Zones are approximately 7 miles east of the project
site and are associated with the White Wolf Fault. The last major earthquake on this fault
occurred in 1952 and caused extensive damage in the Bakersfield area (Krazan & Associates,
Inc. 2008). Since the project site is not within a delineated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake fault zone,
rupture of a known earthquake fault would not occur as a result of implementation of the
project. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 15 November 2014
ICF 393.14
a2. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. As described above, the project site is not within a delineated
Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake fault zone, and there is no evidence that would indicate that an active
fault or other geologic hazard exists on the site that would preclude the implementation of the
proposed project (Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2008). The Bakersfield area has historically
experienced a low to moderate degree of seismicity. The most recent earthquake significant to
the project area was the seismic event that occurred on July 21, 1952 on the White Wolf Fault
and measured a magnitude 7.7. Damage to Bakersfield from the main shock was slight;
however, aftershocks generated just east of Bakersfield produced a great deal of damage to
older buildings. Given that the proposed project is required to comply with all California
Building Code (CBC) requirements for commercial structures, which include the latest measures
to help withstand severe ground shaking, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the
proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving
strong seismic ground shaking, and no further analysis is warranted.
a3. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by
a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally
occurs in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely friction, and under vibratory
conditions such as those induced by a seismic event.
The predominant soils within the project site consist of loose to dense silty sand, sandy silt,
sandy clayey silt, and sand/silty sand. Groundwater was observed during exploratory drilling as
part of the Geologic Hazards Investigation at approximately 43 feet below existing grade due to
seepage from the Kern Island Canal. The historical high groundwater depth was determined to
be approximately 37 feet below site grade. The potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic
event was also evaluated as part of the Geologic Hazards Investigation, and it was determined
that soils below 35 feet have only a slight potential for liquefaction under seismic shaking due to
the loose to medium dense, saturated sandy soils located below 35 feet. Furthermore, according
to the MBGP Safety/Public Safety Element, outside specific portions of the Lamont quadrangle
between about Brundage Land and DiGiorgio Road, soil liquefaction risk is low. The proposed
project site is outside this liquefaction hazard area, and impacts are considered to be less than
significant. No further analysis is warranted.
a4. No Impact. Due to the generally flat‐lying nature of the site and surrounding areas, landslides
would not occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and no impacts would occur. No
further analysis is warranted.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities have the potential to result in erosion,
sedimentation, and discharge of construction debris from the project site. Clearing of vegetation
and grading activities could lead to exposed soils susceptible to runoff and wind erosion.
Therefore, impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil are considered potentially
significant and warrant further analysis in the EIR.
c. Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Although the project site is relatively flat and is not expected to
require earth modifications to great depths, due to the overall project area (85 acres), a
substantial volume of soil would require excavation and recompaction. Furthermore, because of
the existing oil extraction within the project’s vicinity that would continue upon project
implementation, there is potential that seismically induced hazards such as subsidence, laterally
spreading soils, and other hazards could occur within the project boundaries. However, the
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 16 November 2014
ICF 393.14
project would be required to comply with the latest CBC building standards and the project’s
geotechnical engineering requirements, all of which are specifically designed to prevent
significant damage from unsuitable soils. Therefore, with incorporation of mandatory
requirements of the CBC and the requirements prescribed by the project’s geotechnical report,
impacts would be less than significant. Further discussion of these requirements will be
included in the EIR.
d. Less‐than‐Significant Impact. See VI.a.2 and VI.c. Although surface and near‐surface soils
observed at the project site, which consist of silty sand, sandy silt, sandy clayey silt, and
sand/silty sand, have a very low to moderate expansion potential, specific requirements of the
CBC and the project’s geotechnical report would substantially reduce any potential impacts
related to soil expansion. Further discussion of these requirements will be included in the EIR.
e. No Impact. The proposed project would not use septic tanks or other systems to dispose of
wastewater generated by the project. The project would be served by domestic sewer systems
installed as part of the project, the flows from which would be treated at one of the City’s
wastewater treatment plants. No impacts would occur, and further analysis is not warranted.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 17 November 2014
ICF 393.14
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 97, the
Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. The State CEQA
Guidelines do not prescribe a particular threshold of significance or method for determining
significance of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, but instead defer adoption of CEQA
thresholds to the lead agency.
The proposed project would result in temporary construction and long‐term operational
impacts associated with stationary‐area sources like the proposed commercial building, and
vehicle‐source emissions from travelers coming to and from the project site. The construction
and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions through the burning of
fossil fuels or other emissions of GHGs, which are likely to contribute to cumulative impacts
related to global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to
climate change are: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. It is anticipated that combined construction and
operational emissions would result with implementation of the proposed project. A technical
report is being prepared for GHG emissions assessment. The EIR will include a discussion of the
project’s potential to generate GHG emissions and will evaluate the potential impacts related to
global warming.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB
375) was passed in 2008 to supplement Assembly Bill 32, which strives to reduce California’s
overall GHG emissions. Under SB 375, Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO) are required to
prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. The
reduction targets for Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), the MPO for the County of Kern,
are 5% reduction by 2020 and 10% reduction by 2035.
Kern COG’s numeric thresholds are used to help the County close the gap between emissions
reductions from land‐use driven sectors that would occur at the State level (e.g., vehicle fuel
efficiency requirements, renewable energy goals) and the emission reductions necessary from
land use development projects that have a lower carbon intensity. Implementation of the
proposed project may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The proposed project would result in temporary
construction and long‐term operational impacts associated with stationary‐area sources like the
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 18 November 2014
ICF 393.14
proposed commercial building, and vehicle‐source emissions from travelers coming to and from
the project site. A technical report is being prepared for GHG emissions assessment, and the EIR
will include a discussion of the project’s potential conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 19 November 2014
ICF 393.14
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, and result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. Be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. Hazardous substances typically used for construction, such as
paints, solvents, and cleaners, would be transported and used on site. Also, grading and
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.
Substances may also be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located on 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 workers. The
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 20 November 2014
ICF 393.14
transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction process
present a potentially significant impact; the potential for hazardous materials to affect the public
and/or environment during construction will be analyzed in the EIR.
Operations of commercial uses do not generally require the use or storage of any acutely
hazardous materials. Some amount of hazardous materials may be used for regular
maintenance and cleaning of businesses, but these materials are not considered a significant risk
to health and safety, and use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials would be expected to
be in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. Therefore, the risk of accidental
explosion or release of a substantial volume of hazardous substances is unlikely. Additionally,
the project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response
plan requirements set forth by the City and County. Although the types of materials that would
be used during operation are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials
and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose workers and future
customers/vistors. The transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during
the operational phase present a potentially significant impact; the potential for hazardous
materials to affect the public and/or environment during construction will be analyzed in the
EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, some non‐acute hazardous substances
that are typically used in the construction and operation of commercial buildings would be used
during construction and operation of the proposed project. The risk of accidental release or
explosion, which creates a hazardous condition to the public, is unlikely. However, due to the
possible historic use of the site for agriculture, hazardous materials such as pesticides were
likely used and could present a health hazard to workers and future customers. This is
considered a potentially significant impact and will be further evaluated in the EIR.
c. No Impact. There are no schools with 0.25 mile of the proposed project site. The closest
schools are Granite Pointe Elementary School, which is 0.3 mile west of the site along Berkshire
Road; Horizon Elementary School, which is 0.5 mile east of the site along Hosking Avenue;
Golden Valley High School, which is also 0.5 mile east along Hosking Avenue; and Ollivier Middle
School, which is 0.5 mile east of the project site along Berkshire Road. Therefore, the proposed
project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact
would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located on vacant land, which may have
been historically used for agriculture. Historical operations could have used pesticides,
herbicides, or other hazardous materials in regular operations, which in certain concentrations
can be harmful to people, and from which residues may still exist on site. Therefore, because the
current status of this site is unknown, impacts are considered potentially significant. A Phase 1
hazardous materials evaluation will be performed, and issues pertaining to hazardous materials
will be addressed in the EIR.
e. No Impact. The proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a
public use airport. The closest airports to the project site are Bakersfield Municipal Airport,
approximately 3 miles to the northeast; Meadows Field Airport, approximately 7 miles to the
north; and Minter Field Airport, approximately 17.5 miles to the northwest. Therefore, the
project is a sufficient distance from these areas and would not have the potential to expose
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 21 November 2014
ICF 393.14
people to associated safety hazards. Additionally, the project site is not within any area subject
to the land use restrictions of the County of Kern 2011 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,
which considers all of Kern County (County of Kern 2011). Therefore, the project would not
result in a safety hazard from airports for people residing or working in the project area. No
impacts would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Costerisan Farms Airport is 1.7 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project may
have the potential to expose people to associated safety hazards. This issue will be further
evaluated in the EIR.
g. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with the current
Region V Local Emergency Planning Committee Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan (Boykin
Consulting Services 2012). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of
emergency response at the regional level in the event of a hazardous materials incident. In
addition, as part of the project and prior to project approval, the City Fire Department would
evaluate all proposed project plans for compliance with Part III, General Provisions for Fire
Safety, Article 9 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. This section of the code details requirements
for new developments to provide appropriate fire access with regard to street and road design,
which would ensure that emergency response personnel have adequate access to the site in case
of an emergency. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, there are still
specific road access characteristics being developed. Therefore, the project’s compliance with
the Region V Local Emergency Planning Committee Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan and
City Fire Department regulations will be further discussed in the EIR.
h. No Impact. The project is not adjacent to a wildland area. The project site consists of vacant
land. The site is surrounded by existing and proposed development. The proposed land use is
not considered susceptible to wildland fires, and no areas containing flammable brush, grass, or
trees exist close to the project site. Therefore, wildland fires do not have the potential to affect
the site, and no impacts would occur. No further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 22 November 2014
ICF 393.14
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐
existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. 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 onsite or offsite?
d. 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 onsite or offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard
area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect
floodflows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 23 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially violate water quality
standards and waste discharge requirements. The project site encompasses approximately 85
acres, and the project could discharge new urban pollutants from the site. These impacts would
be potentially significant, and further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would add approximately 800,000
square feet of leasable commercial space and associated parking lots and internal drives on
approximately 85 acres, which could potentially interfere with groundwater recharge by
considerably decreasing the amount of pervious surfaces on the site. This issue is considered
potentially significant, and further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern on the site would be
substantially altered through the construction of new urban development. All development
within the City is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan that avoids
on‐site and off‐site flooding, erosion, and siltation issues. Impacts would be potentially
significant, and further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The existing drainage pattern on the site would be
substantially altered through the construction of new urban development. The proposed
project would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the project site and thereby
increase the amount of stormwater runoff. All development within the City is required by
ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan that avoids on‐site and off‐site flooding;
however, further discussion is warranted and will be included in the EIR.
e. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is covered completely by permeable soils. The
proposed project would substantially increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the
project site by constructing commercial structures and parking lots and could contribute to
increased sources of polluted runoff during wet weather conditions from urban pollutants,
including trash, debris, rubber, greases, oils, and other vehicular fluids that leak on surface
parking areas. The proposed project would be required by ordinance to comply with a City‐
approved drainage plan that avoids on‐site and off‐site flooding, erosion, and siltation problems;
however, further discussion is warranted and will be included in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project could degrade water
quality during construction and operation by introducing trash, debris, rubber, greases, oils, and
other vehicular fluids. Impacts on hydrology and water quality would be potentially significant,
and further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
g. No Impact. The project site is not within either a 100‐year or 500‐year flood hazard area as
mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA 2014). Therefore, high
risk of flood (from topographic or drainage characteristics, distance from major rivers, etc.)
would not occur on the site. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
h. No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not within either a 100‐year or 500‐year
flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA (FEMA 2014). Therefore, no impacts would occur and no
further analysis is warranted.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 24 November 2014
ICF 393.14
i. No Impact. The project site is approximately 39 miles southwest of Lake Isabella and is not
within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area (County of Kern 2008). Therefore, no
impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
j. No Impact. The project site is not near any significantly sized enclosed body of water or coastal
area and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is also not at the foot of
any significant topographical feature with the potential for mudflow. Therefore, no impacts
would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 25 November 2014
ICF 393.14
X. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Discussion:
a. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The project site is in south Bakersfield, which is characterized
by urban housing developments and shopping centers. The current project site consists of
vacant land. The project site is adjacent to vacant land to the north and south and residential
development to the west and east. As such, the proposed project would not divide an
established community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further
discussion is not warranted in the EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project site is within the City of Bakersfield and
is subject to the land use designations, goals, and policies contained within the MBGP and the
Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17: Zoning. Under the MBGP, the site’s current land use
designations are LR, LMR, and HMR. The proposed project requests the approval of a General
Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current designations to GC and a Zone Change (ZC) from R‐1 to
C‐2/PCD. Therefore, as part of the project, the applicant would apply for a GPA and ZC so that
the project would be consistent with the land use planning documents and associated zoning
regulations. The potential for impacts related to approval of these discretionary actions, and
subsequent development of the proposed project, is considered potentially significant and will
be analyzed in the EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The site is within the boundaries of the MBHCP (MBHCP
1994). The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan
addresses biological impacts within the MBGP area. The project is subject to the terms of the
MBHCP, along with a Section 10 (a)(1)(B) permit of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and Section
2081 California State Department of Fish and Wildlife permits issued to the City (MBHCP 1994).
The MBHCP does not eliminate the need to consider endangered species under CEQA, but rather
has established programmatic mitigation for project impacts on such species. As part of the EIR,
an analysis of the project’s consistency with the MBHCP will be provided. As such, this impact is
considered potentially significant.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 26 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XI. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
Discussion:
a. No Impact. The principal mineral resources extracted within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area
are oil, natural gas, sand, and gravel. Areas used for sand and gravel extraction are concentrated
primarily along the floodplain and alluvial fan of the Kern River, which is an important resource
for construction, development, and other improvements. Because of the project’s location away
from any alluvial fans and the Kern River, it is unlikely that the project site would contain sand
and gravel that would be considered a valuable commodity; therefore, there would be no impact
to aggregate resources. In addition, the region is a major oil‐producing area, with substantial oil
and gas fields existing within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. However, there are no oil
derricks or oil transmission pipelines on the project site and, according to an oil, gas, and
geothermal map of the area developed by the California Department of Conservation, the project
site is not within any oil field (California Department of Conservation 2001). Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and there would be no impact. No
further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
b. No Impact. The proposed project is not within a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on the MBGP or any relevant specific plans, or other land use plans. No impact
would occur, and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 27 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in a local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area,
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport and expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip
and expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The Noise Element of the MBGP provides noise standards that
should be adhered to in new development construction and operations within the City of
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2002). Surrounding land uses include existing
and planned residential developments to the east and west. The noise environment in the
project area is dominated by traffic noise along SR 99 to the west. Local residents may be
exposed to significant noise during construction activities. Additionally, the increase in
vehicular trips to the site and general on‐site activity could expose residents living along
transportation routes that are used to access the project to significant increased noise levels.
These impacts are considered potentially significant. A detailed noise study will be conducted to
predict project‐generated noise. The EIR will analyze and discuss noise impacts and
recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, where feasible.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise levels. A detailed noise
study will be conducted to predict project‐generated noise. The EIR will analyze and discuss
noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, where feasible.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 28 November 2014
ICF 393.14
c. Potentially Significant Impact. Noise levels within the project area and along transportation
routes to the site may increase as a result of the proposed project. Increases in noise levels
could exceed noise standards. In addition, an increase in vehicle traffic on adjacent roadways
could potentially result in significant noise impacts. A detailed noise study will be conducted to
predict project‐generated noise. The EIR will analyze and discuss noise impacts and
recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, where feasible.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. Temporary noise impacts could occur from construction of the
project. Locations within the project area may be exposed to substantial sources of construction
noise that could exceed established noise standards outlined in the MBGP. A detailed noise
study will be conducted to predict project‐generated noise. The EIR will analyze and discuss
noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts, where feasible.
e. No Impact. The proposed project is not within an airport land use plan nor within 2 miles of a
public use airport. The proposed project is also outside of the area subject to the land use
restrictions of the adopted County of Kern 2011 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of
Kern 1996). As such, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the vicinity of private airstrip
Costerisan Farms Airport, which is approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project site in
Bakersfield. Therefore, the project may have the potential to expose people residing or working
in the area to excessive noise levels. This issue is considered potentially significant and will be
further evaluated in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 29 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XIII. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace a substantial number of existing
housing units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace a substantial number of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
a. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly induce growth due to
the proposed new commercial businesses. Infrastructure and public services have already
extended beyond the project site to the east and south to accommodate new residential and
commercial development. The project would provide employment opportunities in the area;
however, the proposed commercial and retail uses would not require a specialized labor force
and are likely to draw employees from the existing population. Impacts are considered less than
significant, and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
b. No Impact. No existing housing occurs within the project footprint. The City‐proposed SR 99
interchange project would utilize this area and is southwest and adjacent to the proposed
project. This interchange project would result in improvements to the intersection of SR 99 and
Hosking Avenue that would allow access onto and off of the highway from Hosking Avenue in all
directions. In June 2009, the SR 99 interchange project completed preparation of environmental
documentation in compliance with CEQA, which found no significant effect on population and
housing. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing. No
impacts would occur, and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
c. No Impact. As discussed above, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, as no existing housing occurs within the project footprint. Therefore, the project would
not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur, and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 30 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XIV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities or a
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the following public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion:
Fire Protection
Potentially Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are
provided through joint implementation measures between the Metropolitan City of Bakersfield and
the County of Kern (City of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2002). The nearest fire station is the City of
Bakersfield Fire Department, Station 52 (Greenfield), at 312 Taft Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93307,
approximately 1.9 miles southeast from the project site (Kern County Fire Department 2014).
Implementation of the proposed project would increase demands on City of Bakersfield fire
protection services. Subsequent to development of the site, an increase in potential fire hazards and
emergency response situations would occur on site. The increased demand for emergency services
may have the potential to adversely affect fire protection services and may require the construction
of new fire department stations and equipment. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department will be
contacted for input related to the location of existing facilities and service area boundaries and the
potential existing deficiencies that would need to be addressed in order to provide adequate service
for the proposed project. The project’s potential to impact fire and emergency services will be
further analyzed in the EIR, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to fire protection
and services will be recommended, where feasible.
Police Protection
Potentially Significant Impact. Police protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area
are provided through joint implementation measures between the Metropolitan City of Bakersfield
and the County of Kern (City of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2002). The City of Bakersfield Police
Department, 6.4 miles north of the project site at 1601 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301,
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 31 November 2014
ICF 393.14
would provide police protection to the project (Bakersfield Police Department 2014). Construction
and operation of the commercial center would increase demands on the City Police Department.
Subsequent to development of the site, an incremental increase in criminal activity at the site and
vicinity such as vandalism, burglary, and theft could occur as a result of the proposed project. The
increased demand for emergency response and security may have the potential to adversely affect
police and law enforcement services, reducing their ability to protect the public and potentially
requiring the construction of new facilities. This created demand is considered a potentially
significant impact and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Schools
Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect schools. The project is a
commercial center that would not generate any additional school children in the project area or the
subsequent need for schools. The project would provide employment opportunities in the area;
however, the proposed commercial and retail uses would not require a specialized labor force and
are likely to draw employees from the existing population. Therefore, the project is unlikely to
attract into the area a substantial number of new workers with children that would require school
services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis is not warranted in
the EIR.
Parks
Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. The project area is within the boundaries of the City’s Recreation
and Parks District, which identifies 59 parks within the City. The MBGP defines four types of parks:
mini‐parks with a size standard of 2.5 acres; neighborhood parks of at least 10 acres; community
parks with 20 usable acres; and regional parks that may range in size from 20 to 1,000 acres,
developed as a part of service to residential developments within a given radius. The nearest
existing park to the center of the project site is the Granite Point Park in a residential development,
approximately 1.1 miles to the northwest of the project site. Because the proposed project would
not likely increase the residential population of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, the project would
not subsequently increase the demand and use of existing parks. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.
Other Public Facilities
Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. Since the project is a commercial development and would not cause
a residential growth‐inducing effect, it is unlikely that it would have a potentially significant impact
on other public facilities, such as libraries. Projects that induce growth, such as residential
developments, are most likely to affect other public or government facilities. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 32 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XV. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Discussion:
a. Less‐Than‐Significant Impact. An increased use of recreational facilities is generally spurred
by population growth within a defined area. The project would not likely result in an increase in
population, and would not increase demand on existing recreation and park resources or create
an increased demand for new recreation or park resources. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant and further analysis is not warranted in the EIR.
b. No Impact. The proposed project does not include the creation or expansion of recreational
facilities that could have an impact on the environment. No impact would occur and no further
discussion is warranted in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 33 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XVI. Transportation/Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation,
including mass transit and non‐motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including, but not limited to,
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to, level‐of‐service standards and travel
demand measures or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The site, currently vacant land, generates very few vehicle
trips. Because the project would result in commercial development, a substantial increase in the
volume of vehicular trips would occur. The increased automobile trips could add substantial
traffic volumes to local and regional roadways. This increase could impact the level of service
and operating conditions along area roadway segments and at integral intersections within and
nearby the project site. The proposed project may impact existing traffic or conflict with an
applicable traffic plan. A transportation impact study will evaluate traffic impacts and will be
included within the EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. Because the project would generate a large volume of traffic
trips compared to the existing traffic loads on area roadways and at intersections, the level of
service and traffic standards set forth by the County of Kern’s Congestion Management Plan
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 34 November 2014
ICF 393.14
could be exceeded. Additionally, future developments that could occur in the vicinity of the
project area have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. Impacts
would be potentially significant. A transportation impact study will evaluate traffic impacts and
will be included within the EIR.
c. No Impact. The proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a
public use airport. The closest airports to the project location are Bakersfield Municipal Airport,
approximately 3 miles to the northeast; Meadows Field Airport, approximately 7 miles to the
north; and Minter Field Airport, approximately 17.5 miles to the northwest. Therefore, no
impacts would occur and no further discussion is warranted in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. Specific circulation patterns and roadways for the proposed
project would incorporate all applicable civil engineering and City Fire Department standards
contained in Part III, Article 9 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. This would ensure that
hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas
surrounding the project area would not occur. However, additional turning movements
associated with site ingress and egress could increase traffic hazards. Impacts could be
potentially significant. A transportation impact study is being prepared, and the EIR will include
a detailed discussion of potential traffic impacts.
e. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with all
emergency access requirements adopted by the City Fire Department. Site access requirements
are set forth in General Provisions for Fire Safety within the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Specific requirements, such as appropriately designed street widths to provide fire apparatus
with an adequate turning radius, appropriately designed cul‐de‐sacs, and appropriately marked
hydrants and signage, must be included in all developments. These requirements and all others
to be included in the project design would be verified by the Fire Marshall prior to project
approval. The transportation impact study being prepared will include analysis of potential
emergency access impacts. Impacts on emergency access are considered potentially significant
and specific designs that would be included in the project will be analyzed in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project’s effect on transit will be analyzed.
Impacts on adopted policies supporting alternative transportation could be potentially
significant, and potential bus services or other forms of mass transit will be considered and
evaluated in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 35 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would new or expanded
entitlements be needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped, and implementation
of the commercial development would increase the generation of wastewater from the site,
which would require treatment at the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3. Impacts are
considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may require new
infrastructure to support sewer and water services. The proposed project would generate
increased demands for treated water and would generate new wastewater flows from the site.
The project is within the service boundary of the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3,
which would serve the proposed project (City of Bakersfield 2014). The capacity of the plant
was doubled from 16 million gallons per day (mgd) in September 2007 to a capacity of 32 mgd
by June 2010 (Water & Wastes Digest 2010). However, it is unknown whether the upgraded
treatment plant would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, and whether
expanded or new facilities would be required. Therefore, the impacts associated with the
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 36 November 2014
ICF 393.14
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities
are considered potentially significant. This impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the creation of new
impermeable surfaces on existing vacant land. Therefore, to accommodate the increased runoff,
the proposed project would require new stormwater drainage facilities. These facilities would
be included as part of the project. Impacts on existing facilities are considered potentially
significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in a commercial
development on 85 acres. The project would increase demand for water to serve the project.
Currently, it is unknown whether adequate water supplies are available to serve the project or
whether new water sources would be required to serve the project. A water supply assessment
will be prepared and will be summarized in the EIR.
e. Potentially Significant Impact. The project is within the service boundary of the City of
Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3, which is to the southeast and would serve the proposed
project. However, it is unknown whether the plant has adequate capacity to serve increased
wastewater flows that would be generated by the project. These potential new demands are
considered potentially significant impacts and will be further examined in the EIR.
f. Potentially Significant Impact. Because the site is currently vacant land, no solid waste is
generated. As a result of project implementation, the proposed development would result in an
increase in the waste stream to area landfills. It is likely that the Bena Landfill would serve the
project, but it is unknown if the landfill has the capacity to serve the project. Therefore, impacts
are considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
g. Potentially Significant Impact. The project would comply with all local, State, and federal
requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling) and solid waste disposal.
However, the proposed project could potentially generate hazardous wastes or materials that
require special handling. Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be discussed in
the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 37 November 2014
ICF 393.14
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less‐than‐
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less‐than‐
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, 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 that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially result in significant
impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land
use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service
systems. These issues are considered potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the
EIR.
b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in cumulative impacts when
combined with other current, past, or future projects in the area. The EIR will evaluate the
possibility of any potentially significant cumulative impacts.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially result in environmental
effects that have adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potential
impacts associated with air quality and hazards could affect human populations. These impacts
will be further addressed in the EIR.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 38 November 2014
ICF 393.14
References
Bakersfield Police Department. 2014. Headquarters. Last revised: 2014. Available:
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/Headquarters/index.html. Accessed October 3, 2014.
Boykin Consulting Services. 2012. Region V Local Emergency Planning Committee Hazardous
Materials Emergency Plan. Available:
file:///C:/Users/33540/Downloads/region%20v%20lepc%20regional%20plan%202012%20u
pdate%20(2).pdf. Accessed October 4, 2014.
California Department of Conservation. 2001. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields in California.
Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/Map_S‐1.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2014.
California Department of Conservation. 2014a. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed October 6, 2014.
California Department of Conservation. 2014b. Alquist‐Priolo Regulatory Maps. Available:
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed October 3, 2014.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2014. Scenic Highway Program. Scenic
Highways, Kern County. Last Revised: September 7, 2011. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed October 3, 2014.
City of Bakersfield/County of Kern. 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Last Revised: May
15, 2013. Available: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/weblink7/Browse.aspx?startid=602140.
Accessed October 3, 2014.
City of Bakersfield. 2008. Hillside Development Zone Visual Resources, Viewsheds and Protection
Areas Map. Last Revised: 2010. Available:
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/weblink7/Browse.aspx?startid=990235&dbid=0. Accessed
October 3, 2014.
City of Bakersfield. 2014. Public Works Wastewater Division. Available:
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/pubwrks/wastewater/index.htm. Accessed
October 3, 2014.
County of Kern. 1994. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. April 1994.
County of Kern. 1996. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Last Revised: March 29, 2011.
Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/ALUCP2011.pdf. Accessed October 3,
2014.
County of Kern. 2008. Isabella Dam Peak Inundation Depth. Available:
http://esps.kerndsa.com/images/pdf/flood/MainDam2833_Peak_Inundation_Depth_Isabella_Vi
ew_County%20Version.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2014.
County of Kern. 2011. 2011 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available:
http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/ALUCP2011.pdf. Published March 29, 2011.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer.
Available: http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html. Accessed October 3, 2014.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 39 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Kern County Fire Department. 2014. Kern County Fire Stations. Last Revised: 2014. Available:
http://www.kerncountyfire.org/index.php/operations/fire‐stations. Accessed October 3, 2014.
Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2008. Geologic Hazards Investigation. Clovis, CA. Prepared for Mr.
Stephen Coslik, Fort Worth, TX.
Quad Knopf. 2014. Biological Resources Evaluation Hosking/99 Commercial Center. Bakersfield,
CA. July 2014. Prepared for 3 J’s & R, LL Bakersfield, CA.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). No date. Frequently Asked
Questions. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/General_info/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm. Accessed October 6,
2014.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 2002. Guide for Assessing and
Reducing Air Quality Impacts. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI%20Jan%202002%20Rev.p
df. Revised January 10.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1973. Gosford 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle Map. Print Date: 1976.
Water & Wastes Digest. 2010. Reference Guide – Bakersfield WWTP No. 3 Expansion Project.
December 2010. Page 30. Available:
http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/pubwrks/Wastewater/ww_library/Water%20&%
20Wastes%20Digest%20Dec%202010.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2014.
City of Bakersfield Environmental Checklist
Initial Study
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project 40 November 2014
ICF 393.14
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section
15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impact adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in the 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 “potentially significant unless mitigated,” 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.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21083.05.
Reference: Section 65088.4, Government Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1,
21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom
v. County of Mendocino (1988), 202 Cal. App. 3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San
Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
Comment Letters
November 18th, 2014
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mrs. Griego,
The proposed commercial center project slated for the intersection of Highway 99 and Hosking
interchange will be a great amenity for the City of Bakersfield. Proposed to host tenants that are new to
this community, this project will improve the quality of life for residents in South Bakersfield as a central
shopping hub located within close proximity to their homes. While the project will be a boost for the
area it is important to prepare the community and the surrounding areas to best serve the projects
demands.
As a bicycle advocacy organization we see this project as an opportunity to generate more bike trips.
With consideration for the current project we would like to make the following recommendations for
the project:
- Complete Streets Implementation: Hoskings Avenue and South H Street will be the main arterials
serving this project. Both roads are currently planned for future bikeways. Hosking Roads is planned
for a class II bike lane while South H Street is planned to have a class III bike route. With this project
we would like the City to complete the infrastructure on these streets while upgrading the bike
route on South H Street to a class II bike lane. Also, where necessary the City should install curb and
gutter to improve pedestrian access to the shopping center.
- Adequate Bicycle Facilities: Adequate bicycle parking facilities should be considered for the project
when designing. Bike racks serving the project should provide two points of contact for rack users
who use a u-lock to secure their bikes. Also racks should be installed where there are eyes on the
bikes will encourage people to ride and deter theft.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you would like to discuss these matters further please
contact us at (661) 321-9247 and we will happily discuss them.
Sincerely,
Jason Cater
Bike Bakersfield
Executive Director
November 21st, 2014
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mrs. Griego,
The proposed commercial center project slated for the intersection of Highway 99 and Hosking
interchange will be a great amenity for the City of Bakersfield. Proposed to host tenants that are new to
this community, this project will improve the quality of life for residents in South Bakersfield as a central
shopping hub located within close proximity to their homes. While the project will be a boost for the
area it is important to prepare the community and the surrounding areas to best serve the projects
demands.
As a bicycle advocacy organization we see this project as an opportunity to generate more bike trips.
With consideration for the current project we would like to make the following recommendations for
the project:
‐ Develop a Class I Bike Path to Serve the Site: According to the recently updated Bakersfield Bicycle
Transportation Plan the canal along the east side of H Street is slated to have a class I bike path in its
right of way. Bike paths provide complete separation for bikers and walkers from cars. This type of
separation is impactful and encourages those who are interested but concerned about biking to get
out and ride. The class I bike path along the H Street canal should be developed in conjunction with
the proposed project. Building a bike path from Hoskings Avenue to Planz Road will reduce vehicle
trips, mitigate pollution and reduce vehicle miles traveled, and improve our community’s activity
level.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you would like to discuss these matters further please
contact us at (661) 321‐9247 and we will happily discuss them.
Sincerely,
Jason Cater
Bike Bakersfield
Executive Director
1
Jones, Tanya
From: Frary, Dayne@DOC [mailto:Dayne.Frary@conservation.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:01 AM
To: Cecelia Griego
Subject: RE: No Wells on the SR99/Hosking Project Site
Cecelia, I corrected the title block with the correct month and it’s here.
From: Frary, Dayne@DOC
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:51 AM
To: 'cgriego@bakersfieldcity.us'
Subject: No Wells on the SR99/Hosking Project Site
Good Morning, Cecelia. The Division has no comment on this project as it is outside any oil field
boundaries and there are no plugged-and-abandoned dry holes onsite. A location map is attached.
Dayne L. Frary, P. G.
Associate Oil & Gas Engineer
CEQA, Construction Site Review, and Transfers
California DOGGR, Bakersfield Office
(661) 334-4601 Direct Line
Location Map
City of Bakersfield
SR99/Hosking CC Project
In the SE/4 of Section 25, T.30S., R.27E.
Source: Division Online Well Finder
November 2014 DLF
Scale Feet
Scale -Feet
Scale-Feet
Taft Highway
So
u
t
h
U
n
i
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
SITE
Scale-Mile
November 17, 2014
Cecelia Griego
City of Bakersfield
Community Development Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Project: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (GPA/ZC 13-0417)
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887
Dear Ms. Griego:
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Initial
Study (IS) for the SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (GPA/ZC 13-0417). The
proposed project consists of approximately 800,000 square feet of leasable retail space,
240 hotel rooms, 4,472 surface parking spaces along with internal drives and
landscaping. The IS indicates that a detailed technical report will be provided later in
the EIR that further evaluates the air quality impacts. The District offers the following
comments:
Emissions Analysis
1) The District is currently designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard, attainment for PM10 and CO, and nonattainment for PM2.5 for the federal
air quality standards. At the state level, the District is designated as nonattainment
for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 air quality standards. The District
recommends that the Air Quality section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
include a discussion of the following impacts:
a) Criteria Pollutants: Project related criteria pollutant emissions should be
identified and quantified. The discussion should include existing and post-project
emissions.
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887 Page 2 of 6
i) Construction Emissions: Construction emissions are short-term emissions
and should be evaluated separate from operational emissions. The District
recommends preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if annual
construction emissions cannot be reduced or mitigated to below the following
levels of significance: 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons
per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), or 15 tons per year particulate
matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10).
• Recommended Mitigation: To reduce impacts from construction related
exhaust emissions, the District recommends feasible mitigation for the
project to utilize off-road construction fleets that can achieve fleet average
emissions equal to or cleaner than the Tier II emission standards, as set
forth in §2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part
89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations. This can be achieved through
any combination of uncontrolled engines and engines complying with Tier
II and above engine standards.
ii) Operational Emissions: Operational Emissions: Permitted (stationary sources)
and non-permitted (mobile sources) sources should be analyzed separately.
The District recommends preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) if the sum of annual permitted and the sum of the annual non-permitted
emissions each cannot be reduced or mitigated to below the following levels
of significance: 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year
of reactive organic gases (ROG), or 15 tons per year particulate matter of 10
microns or less in size (PM10).
• Recommended Mitigation: Project related impacts on air quality can be
reduced through incorporation of design elements, for example, that
increase energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and reduce
construction exhaust related emissions. However, design elements and
compliance with District rules and regulations may not be sufficient to
reduce project related impacts on air quality to a less than significant
level. Another example of a feasible mitigation measure is the mitigation
of project emissions through a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
(VERA). The VERA is an instrument by which the project proponent
provides monies to the District, which is used by the District to fund
emission reduction projects that achieve the reductions required by the
lead agency. District staff is available to meet with project proponents to
discuss a VERA for specific projects. For more information, or questions
concerning this topic, please call District Staff at (559) 230-6000.
iii) Recommended Model: Project related criteria pollutant emissions should be
identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using
CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model), which uses the most
recent approved version of relevant Air Resources Board (ARB) emissions
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887 Page 3 of 6
models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be
downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.
b) Nuisance Odors: The project should be evaluated to determine the likelihood
that the project would result in nuisance odors. Nuisance orders are subjective,
thus the District has not established thresholds of significance for nuisance
odors. Nuisance odors may be assessed qualitatively taking into consideration of
project design elements and proximity to off-site receptors that potentially would
be exposed objectionable odors.
c) Health Impacts: Project related health impacts should be evaluated to determine
if emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) will pose a significant health risk to
nearby sensitive receptors. TACs are defined as air pollutants that which may
cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may
pose a hazard to human health. The most common source of TACs can be
attributed to diesel exhaust fumes that are emitted from both stationary and
mobile sources. Health impacts may require a detailed health risk assessment
(HRA).
Prior to conducting an HRA, an applicant may perform a prioritization on all
sources of emissions to determine if it is necessary to conduct an HRA. A
prioritization is a screening tool used to identify projects that may have significant
health impacts. If the project has a prioritization score of 1.0 or more, the project
has the potential to exceed the District’s significance threshold for health impacts
of 10 in a million and an HRA should be performed.
If an HRA is to be performed, it is recommended that the project proponent
contact the District to review the proposed modeling approach. The project would
be considered to have a significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that
project related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold
of 10 in a million.
More information on TACs, prioritizations and HRAs can be obtained by:
• E-mailing inquiries to: hramodeler@valleyair.org; or
• Visiting the District’s website at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm.
2) In addition to the discussions on potential impacts identified above, the District
recommends the EIR also include the following discussions:
a) A discussion of the methodology, model assumptions, inputs and results used in
characterizing the project’s impact on air quality. To comply with CEQA
requirements for full disclosure, the District recommends that the modeling
outputs be provided as appendices to the EIR. The District further recommends
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887 Page 4 of 6
that the District be provided with an electronic copy of all input and output files for
all modeling.
b) A discussion of the components and phases of the project and the associated
emission projections, including ongoing emissions from each previous phase.
c) A discussion of project design elements and mitigation measures, including
characterization of the effectiveness of each mitigation measure incorporated into
the project.
d) A discussion of whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant or precursor for which the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin is in non-attainment. More information on the District’s
attainment status can be found online by visiting the District's website at:
http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.
District Rules and Regulations
3) The proposed project may be subject to District rules and regulations, including:
Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and Rule 4641
(Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed,
the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants).
4) The proposed project may require District permits. Prior to the start of construction
the project proponent should contact the District’s Small Business Assistance Office
at (661) 392-5665 to determine if an Authority to Construct (ATC) is required.
5) Based on information provided, the proposed project would equal or exceed the
relevant District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) applicability threshold of 2,000
square feet of commercial space. Therefore, the District concludes that the
proposed project is subject to District Rule 9510.
Any applicant subject to District Rule 9510 is required to submit an Air Impact
Assessment (AIA) application to the District no later than applying for final
discretionary approval, and to pay any applicable off-site mitigation fees before
issuance of the first building permit. If approval of the subject project constitutes the
last discretionary approval by your agency, the District recommends that
demonstration of compliance with District Rule 9510, including payment of all
applicable fees before issuance of the first building permit, be made a condition of
project approval. Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be
found online at: http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887 Page 5 of 6
6) Particulate Matter 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5) from under-fired charbroilers
(UFCs) pose immediate health risk. Since the cooking of meat can release
carcinogenic PM2.5 species like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), controlling
emissions from under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on
public health.
Charbroiling emissions occur in populated areas, near schools and residential
neighborhoods, resulting in high exposure levels for sensitive Valley residents. The
air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with UFCs can be significant
on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is limited and
emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This
potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-
day stagnation events raises environmental concerns.
In addition, the cooking emissions source category is one of the largest single
contributors of directly emitted PM2.5 in the Valley. Photochemical modeling
conducted for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan showed that reducing commercial charbroiling
emissions is critical to achieving PM2.5 attainment in the Valley.
The District will amend Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) in 2016, with a 2017
compliance date, to add emission control requirements for UFCs, as committed to in
the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan. Installing charbroiler emissions control systems
during construction of new facilities is likely to result in substantial economic benefit
compared to costly retrofitting.
Therefore, the District strongly recommends that your agency require new
restaurants that will operate UFCs to install emission control systems during the
construction phase. To ease the financial burden for Valley businesses that wish to
install control equipment before it is required, the District will offer incentive funding
during the time leading up to the 2016 amendment. Restaurants with UFCs may be
eligible to apply for funding to add emission control systems. Please contact the
District at (559) 230-5858 for more information.
7) The above list of rules is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. To identify other District
rules or regulations that apply to this project or to obtain information about District
permit requirements, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the District’s
Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (661) 392-5665. Current District rules
can be found online at the District’s website at:
www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm.
District CEQA Reference No: 20140887 Page 6 of 6
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the
project proponent. If you have any questions or require further information, please call
Sharla Yang at (559) 230-5934.
Sincerely,
Arnaud Marjollet
Director of Permit Services
For Chay Thao
Program Manager
AM: sy
Cc: File
P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
December 2, 2014
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
Attention: Cecelia Griego
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: NOP for SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center (GPA/ZC 13-0417)
Dear Planners:
There are a number of issues that must be addressed in an EIR for the above
project. They include:
1. If other existing stores close as a result of loss of business to this project, the
project could result in urban decay.
• A number of retail stores in Bakersfield have been closed down and
remain vacant; e.g., Mervyns and Gottshchalk’s. A new project like
Hosking Commercial will make it less likely that the buildings that housed
these stores will be reused and more likely that these buildings will
deteriorate.
• The East Hills Mall in northeast Bakersfield is empty of large retailers, and
its buildings and the surrounding vicinity could easily become victims of
urban decay if new retailers are not attracted. It would seem obvious that
competition from the Hosking Commercial project to get large retailers to
situate there would make it harder to get them to come to the East Hills
Mall and would, thus, add to the impetus for urban decay in the northeast
area.
• Moreover, the downtown area is lacking any major retailers, whereas in
the past it contained a JCPenney store and a Brock’s store. The City is
making strong efforts to revitalize downtown and help to curtail urban
decay in the area, and competition from Hosking Commercial to attract
large retailers and other businesses could undercut the City’s efforts.
The EIR must examine the impact of this project on urban decay and,
specifically, on the above shopping areas.
2. Light pollution must be addressed. Lighting for the project should be fully
shielded so that no lighting escapes upward and little escapes horizontally to
cause glare. The International Dark Sky Association (www.darksky.org) has
guidelines that would be useful as conditions of development. Some of them
include the following:
2
• All lights should be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there should be no light emitted
above the horizontal and not much light (generally < 4%) at angles greater
than 75° above the vertical.
• Streetlights should be flat-lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level
position. Energy efficient sodium lamps should be used. They should be
mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by
applicable codes.
• Exterior lighting originating on a property should be limited to a maximum
of 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines.
• Advertising signs should be illuminated from above and should be off
between 11 p.m. and sunrise unless the business is open to the public at
that time.
• Streetlights should be rated “Dark Sky Friendly” by the International Dark
Sky Association.
3. The potential effects of light pollution not only on aesthetics but also on
biological resources must be examined in the EIR.
4. Air pollution associated with the project must be mitigated, not only onsite but
also perhaps by funding air pollution reduction projects sufficient to mitigate the
air pollution associated with this project. A possible mitigation measure would
incorporate as a condition of development a requirement that the developer
directly fund pollution reduction projects that would offset the pollution associated
with the projects (so as to mitigate cumulative impacts).
There are a number of other possible mitigation measures. For example, the
SJVAPCD, in letters on other projects (e.g., the letter of March 1, 2005, included
in the City’s GPA/ZC 05-0403 Negative Declaration), lists a number of onsite
design measures (photovoltaic cells, bikeways, passive solar design, bus
turnouts, energy efficiency, etc.) that would reduce air quality impacts and which
should be explored in the EIR for this project.
In addition, several developers (including the West Ming project and the Old
River Ranch project in the City) have agreed to participate in an Emissions
Reduction Program (a VERA) through the SJVAPCD. Through this program,
developers promise to completely offset the emissions associated with their
project. If the details reflect this promise, if the developers carry through, and if
citizens are given adequate opportunity for input, air pollution impact could be
reduced to zero (as well it should be in this polluted air basin). The EIR should
discuss the possibility of such a program.
5. While the project will likely be subject to the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review
rule, these reductions will not alone address the cumulative impact of the
project on air quality. The EIR must address the remaining criteria pollutant
emissions.
3
6. The EIR must address cumulative impacts to air quality even if it argues that it
“is in compliance” with the SJVAPCD 2007 Ozone Plan, a plan that fails to
address the Valley’s extreme nonattainment status for the federal 8-hour ozone
standard. As the Plan admits on page ES-14, “Currently available pollution
control technology and the known technology scheduled for future availability
cannot produce sufficient reductions to satisfy the Valley’s attainment gap”, a gap
of 82 tons per day of NOx in 2023. The SJVAPCD 2007 Ozone Plan does not
“avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area
in which the project is located.” CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)(3). Complying with a
Plan that fails to address this major public health issue does not satisfy the intent
of CEQA in this regard.
The southern San Joaquin Valley fights it out every year with Los Angeles for
having the worst air in the nation. See the American Lung Association report at
http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-
air-report-2013.pdf. Since our extreme air pollution affects the health of many
residents, the EIR must thoroughly address the issue. CEQA Guidelines
15064(h)(3) state, “If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a
particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the
project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the
cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project.” At the very least,
this project must mitigate its cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants,
perhaps by funding offsite pollution reduction projects.
7. Construction emissions should be completely offset. Many offsite emission
reduction projects have a relatively short lifespan, perhaps even shorter than the
buildout period for this project. It is feasible and appropriate to fund relatively
short-lived emission reduction projects that would offset the construction
emissions associated with this project. An EIR should address such a program.
Options for reducing construction emissions might include use of late model
engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit
technology, and after-treatment products. Environmental impacts must be
mitigated when feasible measures are available; just because effective
mitigations used elsewhere are not specified or discussed in the GAMAQI
doesn’t mean the lead agency can ignore them, and cost alone is not sufficient to
deny full, substantive evaluation of available mitigations. Onroad and offroad
emission control aftertreatments are available for NOx and PM10 reductions to
reduce impacts of construction diesels and of diesels that will work at or travel
to/from the development once it is completed. There should be a comprehensive
listing and review of mitigations that are not “facially infeasible”, and the
discussion should not be limited to mitigations that are directly or implicitly
conditioned within the GAMAQI. The Sacramento air basin has essentially the
same development-related vehicle fleets and vehicle operation parameters as
those in Kern County. A scraper used to grade the development studied here is
essentially the same type, horsepower, vintage, and emission level as used to
4
grade a project in Sacramento, and grading practices in valley soils are similar
from north to south. Sacramento’s requirement for 20% NOx reduction and 45%
PM10 reduction, based on a fleet average emission level for each type of
construction equipment is feasible and reasonable based on several years of
experience there. The EIR should explore such a requirement, and the City
should add it as a condition of development.
8. Trees and other plants in increasing elevation are negatively impacted by mobile
and stationary source pollution from motor vehicles and industry. Sequoia
National Forest and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks are the most polluted
parks and forests in the federal system. This pollution is directly attributed to San
Joaquin Valley activities. See, for example,
http://www.elsevier.com/books/ozone-air-pollution-in-the-sierra-nevada-
distribution-and-effects-on-forests-2/bytnerowicz/978-0-08-044193-1 or
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/southernsierrascience/speakers/pdf/cisneros.pdf. The
EIR should examine and mitigate the cumulative air pollution effects of this
project on forest resources.
9. In the Vineyard Area Citizens et al. vs City of Rancho Cordova et al. decision, the
California Supreme Court stated, “We conclude that while the EIR adequately
informed decision makers and the public of the County’s plan for near-term
provision of water to the development, it failed to do so as to the long-term
provision and hence failed to disclose the impacts of providing the necessary
supplies in the long term. While the EIR identifies the intended water sources in
general terms, it does not clearly and coherently explain, using material properly
stated or incorporated in the EIR, how the long-term demand is likely to be met
with those sources, the environmental impacts of exploiting those sources, and
how those impacts are to be mitigated.” The EIR must include verification of
sufficient water supplies for the future and should discuss the environmental
impacts of supplying future water to the project.
10. Consultants from out of the area who are not beholden to local developers for
their business should do the air and traffic studies for this project. The consultant
should be hired and monitored by the City, not by the developer. If additional
lanes on area roads are to be constructed by this or some other developer, a
fixed timetable for construction should be included. Such infrastructure should
be in place before project construction is completed.
11. Given the existing traffic congestion on Highway 99, Panama Lane, and
elsewhere in the Southwest and South, we suggest that the cumulative impact
of this project on traffic could easily be considerable. The traffic study for this
EIR should not restrict itself to the rosiest scenario for the future; the study
should not assume that all planned circulation facilities that would be needed to
maintain appropriate level of service would actually be constructed by the time
the project is at full buildout. Since costs for new roads and intersections are
large and funding is not guaranteed, it is unlikely that many of these new facilities
5
will be constructed before full buildout of the project. On March 4, 2007, the Bakersfield Californian published a series of articles written by James Burger
under the headline Gridlock in Bakersfield. One of the articles states,
“Bakersfield Public Works Director Raul Rojas said he’s expecting costs for
projects to skyrocket, similar to the parkway. Which leaves Bakersfield looking
for more cash to construct roads.” Of course, voters voted against a sales tax
increase that would have provided matching funds for state or federal
transportation funds, clouding the situation even further. If the EIR is to explain
the full traffic impact of this and other cumulative projects, it must incorporate the
very realistic likelihood that funding may not be available and some future traffic
improvements will not be built on schedule.
12. This project is at the southern fringe of urban development in Bakersfield, and
common sense would indicate that traffic to and from the project from distant NW
or NE Bakersfield would lead to increased area vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
As mandated by SB 743, draft CEQA Guidelines require new projects to analyze
impacts of project-associated VMT, defined as “distance of automobile travel
associated with a project.” The EIR must compute project VMT. The traffic study
should address the probability of increased VMT due to this project, it should
address the project’s VMT impact on SB 375 goals and local RTP commitments,
and the EIR must suggest effective mitigation measures.
13. The EIR must contain an alternative that could significantly reduce total
vehicle miles traveled. There are alternative infill sites that should be
considered. For example, the East Hills Mall could serve as an alternative site
for the retail commercial development. East Hills Mall has existing infrastructure
and existing buildings, and development there would address the urban decay
issue. Moreover, some new development is occurring downtown, and there may
be large redevelopment areas available in the downtown area for an alternate
site.
14. The EIR should explore a “Transit-oriented Alternative” for the proposed
project, an alternative in which design is focused on effective public
transportation to and from the project. This alternative should include parking
management measures that promote walking and transit use and should include
consideration of area-wide light rail and its cumulative effect on traffic congestion.
15. It is likely that the area was at one time home to many species of plants and
animals, including endangered species such as kit fox and blunt-nosed leopard
lizards as well as many other native species such as burrowing owls and Kern
brodiaea. While many of these species may have been driven out of the project
site by agricultural operations, some of the native plant species could be
reintroduced by replanting them in the open space areas proposed for the
project. In addition, landscaping should include drought-tolerant and/or native
plants. A thorough biological study should include such considerations and
should use approved and up-to-date protocol. We note that the blunt-nosed
6
leopard lizard is completely protected by state law and, as such, no take permit
under the Habitat Conservation Plan can be issued.
16. The project is at the southern edge of development in Bakersfield. Lands south
of the project are undeveloped and designated for residential or agricultural use.
The Hosking interchange will make adjacent undeveloped areas more accessible
from SR 99 and this could represent the removal of an obstacle to growth. The
EIR must discuss the growth inducing impact of this project.
17. We are aware of many tens of thousands of residences and a large number of
commercial projects in the pipeline for metropolitan Bakersfield. The cumulative
impacts to air quality, traffic, schools, water resources, biological resources, etc.,
by this and the dozens of other “closely related past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable probable future projects” (quote from CEQA Guideline 15355(b))
proposed for the area must be thoroughly explored. Analysis of the cumulative
impact to traffic should include quantification of cumulatively increased traffic and
a discussion of measures necessary to mitigate increased traffic on already
congested Highway 99, Panama Lane, and other major area highways around
the project and towards downtown.
18. Will efficient public transportation be available to this project? Will there be
fast and convenient service to downtown, to housing areas, and to working
areas? Will the project include bus turnouts and park-and-ride facilities? If so,
the EIR should quantify their effects as air pollution and greenhouse gas
mitigation.
19. Will there be convenient and attractive pedestrian and bicycle connections from
local housing to this project? How will pedestrians and bicyclists safely and
conveniently cross congested area highways? How will walking and bicycling
paths be coordinated with other projects in the area?
20. The EIR should discuss energy efficiency and its relationship to air quality and
utilities services.
21. The EIR must discuss the potentially significant energy implications of the
cumulative area growth. Analysis of energy impacts is practical at this stage and
should not be deferred. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, the
following:
• The EIR should discuss the project’s effects on local and regional energy
supplies and the need for additional capacity to serve the project.
• The EIR should discuss the project’s effect on peak and base period
demands for electricity.
• It must consider the “potentially significant energy implications of a project”
(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F).
• It must include “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy” (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F).
7
• In order to evaluate solar photovoltaics (PV) as potential mitigation, the
EIR should quantify the benefits of building solar PV into the buildings
proposed for this project. Quantifying the benefits of solar photovoltaics is
straightforward and well researched (see, e.g., Economics of Solar Homes, Environment California Research and Policy Center, December
2004). In order to help comply with statewide needs and goals, the EIR
should discuss this possibility.
22. In its newest report at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) offered its starkest warning yet about the challenges
facing humanity. Not only does the IPCC show that climate change is real and
that its impacts are happening faster than anticipated, but it says that
governments need to work towards a complete phase out of fossil fuel emissions.
While previous estimates say human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels
- is responsible for more than half of all warming, the latest report shows we are
actually responsible for all warming since 1951. The IPCC makes it clear that
emissions need to go to zero if the world is to keep global warming below the
internationally agreed limit of 2DegC. For the best chance of avoiding severe
levels of warming, governments will need to peak emissions, rapidly phase fossil
fuels down to zero and transition to 100 percent renewable energy.
23. The EIR should consider requiring the project to generate its electricity using
solar photovoltaic panels. In addition to air quality and many other societal
benefits, solar photovoltaic panels on the buildings could generate enough
electricity to help mitigate the potential need to build upgraded electrical facilities
and new power plants. In this context, the EIR should discuss the potential need
to upgrade electrical facilities as a result of the cumulative impact of this project.
24. The EIR must discuss global climate change resulting from emissions
associated with the project. For example, the electricity used in this project will
presumably be generated at a natural gas-fired power plant. Such power plants
generate large amounts of CO2. The use of solar photovoltaic panels can offset
CO2 emissions from electrical power plants, and the EIR should quantify the
effect on CO2 emissions of building solar photovoltaic panels into the structures.
Given the seriousness of the global warming issue, the City should be
addressing the issue with specific feasible GHG mitigation measures. There are
a number of potential feasible mitigation measures, including:
• Green building measures. Measures might include requiring that buildings be
at least 35% more energy efficient than Title 24 standards current when
permits are pulled. Satisfy LEED Silver standards on the commercial
buildings.
• Design features to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Similar
considerations are built into the recent agreement between the City of
Stockton and the Sierra Club and Attorney General.
• Parking management measures that promote walking and transit use.
8
• A requirement that solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar water heating be built
into every structure. Every kilowatt of solar PV power offsets about a ton per
year of global warming gasses that would have otherwise been produced by a
fossil fuel-fired power plant (according to Environment California Research
and Policy Center in a publication entitled The Economics of Solar Homes in
California).
• A requirement for partial funding of an area energy efficiency program
creating equivalent reductions in carbon emissions.
• A requirement that the project partially subsidize public transportation in order
to reduce area VMT.
• A requirement that the developer retrofit solar PV on existing area buildings.
Retrofitting existing area buildings with solar PV would effectively offset
emissions associated with this project in much the same way as the
SJVAPCD uses ISR funds to fund offsite projects to offset criteria pollutants
associated with development projects.
• A condition that parking lots be covered and that parking lot roofs contain
solar PV.
• A requirement that the developer contribute funding for area solar PV
incentives. Most solar PV incentive programs use funding rebates to
encourage PV construction. The City of Lemoore has such a program. In the
absence of a local solar PV incentive program, we suspect that Lemoore
would be pleased to accept a contribution from this developer to boost their
program.
• A requirement that the developer contribute a GHG fee to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District or a qualifying Foundation to be used to
fund projects that would reduce GHG emissions elsewhere. This could be
built in to the criteria pollutant VERA as the Air District has suggested in the
past.
The EIR should evaluate these potential mitigation measures.
25. This project will be visible from Highway 99. While we fully understand that
Highway 99 is not part of California’s Scenic Highway Program, the low
impression that many Californians have of Bakersfield is derived from what they
see while driving on Highway 99. The EIR must contrast the aesthetic impact
on Highway 99 travelers of standard big box commercial projects to those with
upgraded facilities designed with aesthetics in mind. The EIR should
recommend design features needed to reduce this impact.
26. The developers propose to build this project on land that was agricultural land
in the past, and conversion to urban uses should be addressed. We remark that
Sequoia Riverlands Trust, an existing Tulare County land trust, can serve as a
holding agency for farmland conservation easements. A number of projects in
California (including several in Kern County) have agreed to fund agricultural
conservation easements as partial mitigation for such conversion (e.g., the West
Ming project, Rosedale Ranch in northwest Bakersfield, Old River Ranch in
9
southwest Bakersfield, the Blackhawk project, SV Investments Project, Lent
Ranch in Elk Grove). The EIR should discuss potential mitigation measures for
the loss to agricultural use of this land.
27. Is there a need for this project? Agricultural Conservation Policy No. 14 of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires, among other things, evaluation
of “demonstrated project need” when converting agricultural lands to non-
agricultural use. How many other commercial projects in Metropolitan
Bakersfield have already been approved but have not yet been built? How many
are in the pipeline? The EIR must fully examine the need for this project.
28. As best we can tell from the Initial Study, there are no non- parking space open
space or park areas proposed for the project. The EIR should discuss the
rationale for and against including open space in the project.
29. Adverse health effects of the area’s abysmal air quality have been well
documented in the medical literature. Table 5 from a document entitled Particle
Civics prepared by the Environmental Working Group uses information from the
Air Resources Board and states that in Kern County there are 223 deaths per
year due to PM2.5 at current levels and that there are 106,695 workdays lost in
Kern County due to PM10 at current levels. Our air is already some of the
dirtiest in the nation. Given the additional air pollution generated by this and
other projects in the area, the EIR must study the public health risk of increased
development and incorporate mitigation strategies to lower the risk.
30. The EIR must include an economic analysis that realistically details the cost to
local governments of new infrastructure necessary to sustain this project and that
specifies that portion of the cost borne by the developer. The economic analysis
for the EIR should incorporate analysis of the statistics relating to workdays lost
and deaths per year in the EWG document above.
Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for the SR 99/Hosking Commercial
Center project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents,
and to receive the environmental documents. We prefer email communications and
electronic formatting of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D
Vice-Chair
gnipp@bak.rr.com