The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR99/Hosking Commercial Center Initial StudyINITIAL 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.