HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Initial Study-Notice of Preparation and ResponsDraft
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2005051055
City of Bakersfield
West Ming Specific Plan
August 31, 2006
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Project Director
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Contact: Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
APPENDICES - Volumes I, II, and III
APPENDICES
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
for
West Ming Specific Plan
Volumes I, II and III
Prepared for:
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
661.326.3733
Contact: Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Project Director
August 31, 2006
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_TOC_appendices.doc
Table of Contents
Volume I
Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Responses
Appendix B: Farmland Conversion Study
Appendix C: Air Quality Assessment (Report and Appendices I – XI)
Volume II
Appendix C: Air Quality Assessment (Appendix XII)
Volume III
Appendix D: Biota Report
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Survey
Appendix F: Geotechnical Feasibility Study/ Geological Hazard Study
Appendix G: Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Appendix H: Natural Resources Impact Report
Appendix I: Flood Study and Lake Report
Appendix J: Noise Study
Appendix K: Public Services Report
Appendix L: Traffic Report
Appendix M: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix N: Compatibility and Safety Assessment
Appendix O: Cumulative Projects List
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Appendices.doc
Appendices
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Appendices.doc
Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
and Responses
Initial Study
for the
West Ming Specific Plan
Prepared for:
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
661.326.3733
Contact:Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact:Michael E. Houlihan, AICP
May 11, 2005
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Environmental Checklist Form..........................................................................................1
Section 2 Introduction..........................................................................................................................5
2.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................................5
2.2 Project Location...........................................................................................................8
2.3 Project Description.....................................................................................................15
Section 3 Environmental Evaluation................................................................................................25
1. Aesthetics...................................................................................................................25
2. Agriculture Resources................................................................................................25
3. Air Quality..................................................................................................................25
4. Biological Resources..................................................................................................26
5. Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................27
6. Geology and Soils......................................................................................................27
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................28
8. Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................29
9. Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................29
10. Mineral Resources......................................................................................................30
11. Noise...........................................................................................................................30
12. Population and Housing.............................................................................................31
13. Public Services...........................................................................................................31
14. Recreation...................................................................................................................31
15. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................31
16. Utilities and Service Systems.....................................................................................32
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance..........................................................................33
Section 4 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.........................................................................35
1. Aesthetics...................................................................................................................35
2. Agriculture Resources................................................................................................36
3. Air Quality..................................................................................................................38
4. Biological Resources..................................................................................................40
5. Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................41
6. Geology and Soils......................................................................................................42
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................43
8. Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................44
9. Land Use and Planning...............................................................................................46
10. Mineral Resources......................................................................................................47
11. Noise...........................................................................................................................48
12. Population And Housing............................................................................................49
13. Public Services...........................................................................................................50
14. Recreation...................................................................................................................52
15. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................52
16. Utilities and Service Systems.....................................................................................53
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance..........................................................................56
Section 5 References...........................................................................................................................57
Table of Contents West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
iv Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map.......................................................................................................11
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map..............................................................................................................13
Exhibit 3: Site Land Use Plan..............................................................................................................19
Exhibit 4: Zoning..................................................................................................................................21
Exhibit 5: Project Phasing....................................................................................................................23
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form
Michael Brandman Associates 1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
SECTION 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Information
1. Project Title............................................West Ming Specific Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address............City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number........Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
661.326.3733
4. Project Location......................................The project site is located in the southwest portion of the
City west of Buena Vista Road, North of Pacheco Road,
south of Ming Avenue, and east of the proposed West
Beltway. The Kern River is located one-quarter mile
north of the northern boundary of the project site. The
project site encompasses approximately 2,182 acres, of
which 640 acres are currently within the City limits and
1,542 acres are located in unincorporated Kern County.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address.....Castle & Cooke California, Inc.
Stephan DeBranch, Vice President – Land Development
10000 Stockdale Highway, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93311
6. Description of Project.............................The proposed project is the adoption of the West Ming
Specific Plan and also includes annexing approximately
1,542 acres to the City, amending the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan, a zone change, and execution
of a development agreement between the City and the
developer. Proposed land uses include: 7,450 dwelling
units; 810,400 square feet of commercial, office, and
retail development; 1,135,000 square feet of special uses
allowed by the West Ming Specific Plan; four
elementary schools and a middle-school; approximately
200 acres dedicated for recreation, parks, open space,
and recreational lakes; 44 acres of commercial
development; and approximately 250 acres reserved for
a special use district..
Environmental Checklist Form West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.......The project site is characterized by agricultural
production and petroleum extraction. The northern
portion of the site is bisected by the Kern River Canal.
The Kern River is located just north of the site. The
project site is bordered on the south and west by
agricultural lands and petroleum extraction, and on the
east by residential subdivisions.
8. Public Entities Involved
Based on a preliminary review of the proposed project and location, approval may be required
from the following public entities, which include California public agencies, local government
and federal agencies:
City of Bakersfield;
Kern Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo);
County of Kern, Resource Management Agency;
County of Kern, Environmental Health Services Department;
Panama-Buena Vista Union High School District;
Kern High School District;
Kern River Levee District;
Kern County Water Agency;
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;
State of California, Reclamation Board;
State of California, Office of Emergency Services;
State of California, Department of Fish and Game;
State of California, Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Central Valley Region;
State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources;
United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX; and
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Bakersfield (City) is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Initial Study, and
additional environmental documentation that will be required for the proposed project. The City has
primary responsibility for approval or denial of the proposed project. The intended use of this
document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the
Program-level Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and to provide the basis for input from public
agencies, organizations, and members of the public.
2.1.1 Program EIR
The City has elected to prepare a PEIR for the proposed project. Codified in Section 15168, et seq.,
of the State CEQA Guidelines, a PEIR is a type of EIR that may be prepared for a project that contain
a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: geographically;
as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as
individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and
having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
Use of a PEIR also enables a Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as the project being
approved at that time. Following this approach, when individual activities within the program are
proposed, the Lead Agency would be required to examine the individual activities to determine
whether their effects were fully analyzed in the PEIR. If the proposed activities would have no
effects beyond those analyzed in the PEIR, the Lead Agency could assert that the activities are merely
part of the program which had been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be
required. However, if the effects of individual activities were not fully analyzed in the PRIR, further
CEQA compliance would be required.
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
2.1.2 Public Entities and Anticipated Approvals
Following are the public entities anticipated to use the PEIR and their respective, anticipated
approvals and/or area of review:
City of Bakersfield
West Ming Specific Plan approval
Land Use Element Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Circulation Element Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Kern River Plan Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation impact fees
Zone changes
Development Agreement
Grading Plan Approval
Building permits
Vesting Tentative Tract Maps
Final Tract Maps
Parcel Maps
Conditional Use Permits
Occupancy Permits
Oil well drilling/production permit
Petroleum Integration Plan
Water supply verification
Kern River Levee District
Levee modification
Kern Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence amendment
Reorganization (annexation and detachment)
County of Kern
Kern River Plan Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
School site consultation and approval
School impact fees
Kern High School District
School impact fees
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Kern County Water Agency
Water Planning
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Air quality
State of California, Reclamation Board
Designated Floodway Encroachment Permits
State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
NPDES permits
State of California, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Letters of well abandonment
State of California, Department of Fish and Game
Notice of Intent to initiate ground disturbing activities
State of California, Office of Emergency Services
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
Conditional and Final Letters of Map Revision
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Intent to initiate ground disturbing activities
2.1.3 Intended Uses of this Document
This Initial Study document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail
required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also
serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members the public and public agencies
regarding the proposed project, following the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the
PEIR. The NOP will be circulated for 30 days, during which period written comments regarding the
issues to be addressed in the EIR are invited to be sent to:
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attn: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 2,182-acre site is generally located west of Buena Vista Road, north of Pacheco
Road, south of Ming Avenue, and east of the proposed West Beltway alignment (see Exhibit 1 and
Exhibit 2). Approximately 640 acres of the project site are within the Bakersfield city limits and the
remainder of the project site (1,542 acres) is located in unincorporated Kern County.
2.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is characterized by agricultural production and oil field activities. The northern
portion of the site is bisected by the Kern River Canal. The Kern River is located approximately one-
quarter mile north of the northern boundary of the project site. The project site is bordered on the
south and west by agricultural lands and oil field activities, and on the east by residential
subdivisions. A portion of the northwest corner of the project site is used for groundwater recharge
by the Kern County Water Agency.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designates the majority of the project site as R-IA
(Resource – Intensive Agriculture). Small portions of the northwest corner of the project site are
designated as R-MP (Resource – Mineral Petroleum) and OS (Open Space).
The portion of the project site located within the City limits is zoned A-20-A (Agriculture Zone, 20
acre minimum). The portion of the project site located in unincorporated Kern County contains the
following zoning classifications: A (Exclusive Agriculture); FPP (Floodplain-Primary); A-GH
(Exclusive Agriculture-Geologic Hazard Combining); A-FPS (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain-
Secondary Combining); and A-FPS-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain-Secondary Combining-
Geologic Hazard Combining).
2.2.2 Project of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance
Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidelines lists the types of projects that are considered to be of
Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance. When a project is so classified, the environmental
documentation shall be distributed to State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research, who will distribute the documentation to applicable agencies, boards, or commissions.
Documentation should also be distributed to the metropolitan area council of governments that the
project site is located in.
The West Ming Specific Plan is considered to be a project of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide
Significance for the following reasons:
• A general plan amendment is proposed;
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
• Potential environmental effects could extend beyond the City limits;
• More than 500 dwelling units are proposed; and
• More that 500,000 square feet of combined commercial and industrial space is proposed.
02160029 • 02/2005 | 1_regional.mxd
Exhibit 1Regional Location MapN
OR
T
H
Michael Brandman Associates
Source: Census 2000 Data.
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
UnincorporatedVentura County
UnincorporatedKern County
5
14
126
Lancaster
Palmdale
Santa Clarita
RosamondLebecPine Mountain Club
5
155
178
223
166
119
166
33 46
43
99
58
UnincorporatedSanta Barbara County
UnincorporatedSan Luis Obispo County
UnincorporatedKern County
Bear Valley Springs
Stallion Springs
Keene
Bakersfield
Shafter
Arvin
Oildale
Lake Isabella
Wofford Heights
Bodfish
Wasco
Lost Hills
Buttonwillow
Taft
Derby Acres
McKittrick
Valley Acres
99
184
5
UnincorporatedKings County UnincorporatedTulare County
UnincorporatedLos Angeles County
190
138
65
33
154
Project Site
100105
Miles
Project Site
SO
UTH ALLEN RD
MING AV
PACHECO RD
City of Bakersfield
Unincorporated Kern County
Michael Brandman Associates
02160029 • 02/2005 | 2_vicinity_location_map.cdr
N
ORTH
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit 2
Vicinity Location Map
Source: Thomas Guide Digital Edition, 2004.
SCALE IN FEET
3,3331,666.5 0 3,333
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the adoption and implementation of the West Ming Specific Plan. The proposed
project is the adoption of the West Ming Specific Plan and also includes annexing approximately
1,542 acres to the City, amending the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, a zone change, and
execution of a development agreement between the City and the developer. Proposed land uses
include: 7,450 dwelling units; 810,400 square feet of commercial, office, and retail development;
1,135,000 square feet of special uses allowed by the West Ming Specific Plan; four elementary
schools and a middle-school; approximately 200 acres dedicated for recreation, parks, open space,
and recreational lakes; 44 acres of commercial development; and approximately 250 acres reserved
for a special use district (see Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4). The special use district could include the
following uses: commercial; retail; manufacturing; agriculture; passive or active parks; and oil and
gas exploration and production wells. Development of the proposed project is anticipated to develop
in eleven development phases (see Exhibit 5). Table 1 provides a statistical summary of the proposed
project.
Table 1: Statistical Summary
Land Use Acres Maximum DU and SF
Residential 1,313.67 7,450 DUs
Commercial 44.00 478,880 SF
Town Center Commercial and Mixed Use 52.48 331,200 SF
Recreational/Parks//Open Space/Water
Elements 197.93 NA
Roadways/Canal 258.12 NA
Special Uses 247.18 1,135,000 SF
Schools:
4 Elementary
1 Junior High School
68.55 NA
Total 2,181.87 7,450 DUs
1,945,080 SF
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, March 2005. Abbreviations:
DU: Dwelling Unit
SF: Square Feet
NA: Not Applicable
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
The project site will be divided into the following distinct areas: six residential villages; a Village
Center District, which includes a Town Center; and a Special Use District. The six residential
villages, tentatively identified as Villages A through F, surround the Village Center District and
contain varying densities of residential development. All six villages would support and be supported
by the services that would be developed in the Village Center District. The Village Center District is
intended to function as the activity center for the entire project site and proposes retail commercial,
offices, high-density residential, and community services, and recreational amenities. The Town
Center portion of the Village Center District is intended to be a mixed-use zone that could include a
combination of high-density residential and commercial and office uses. The Special Use District
would be developed with intense commercial and light industrial uses. Existing oil field activities
and agricultural uses could continue within the Special Use District.
Residential development within each of the six villages and the Village Center District proposes a
specific number of dwelling units, identified as a target, and allows for the target number of dwelling
units within a village to be increased by 15 percent. If the target number of dwelling units is
increased in any of these areas, the target number of dwelling units in one or more of the other areas
would be decreased in order to maintain the maximum number of proposed dwelling units on the
entire project site.
Infrastructure included in the proposed project is related to the development of roadways, trails and
pedestrian access, domestic water supply lines, wastewater conveyance lines, and stormwater
collection and conveyance lines.
Technical Studies
The following technical studies will be summarized in the EIR:
Cultural Resources Natural Resources (petroleum)
Hazardous Materials Air Quality
Biota Public Services
Recreational Lake Management Plan Traffic and Circulation
Water Supply Assessment Noise (acoustical analysis)
Wastewater (sewer) Flood Hazard Safety
Farmland Conversion Geotechnical Feasibility/Geologic
Hazard
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement (DA) for the West Ming Specific Plan will consist of a mixed-use
master-planned community, including approximately 7,450 residential units, and permitting various
other uses including commercial, parks, school sites, light industrial, and other special uses, together
with roads, related parking, landscaping and supporting public and private infrastructure. The
proposed project would result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by the project
under existing ordinances, policies, rules, and regulations. Accordingly the DA provides
consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the developer by providing
more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs for urban park facilities and fire and police services
and equipment.
The DA provides that the developer shall be permitted to develop the property in accordance with the
West Ming Specific Plan. For the term of the DA, the rules, regulations and official policies
governing permitted uses, governing density, and governing design, improvement and construction
standards and specifications applicable to development of the property and the project shall be those
rules, regulations and official policies in force at the time of the effective date of the DA. In addition,
the DA proposes that the City shall only charge and impose those fees and exactions, including,
without limitation, dedications and any other fee or tax (including excise, construction or any other
tax) relating to development or the privilege of developing, which are in effect on a City-wide basis.
Michael Brandman Associates
02160029 • 02/2005 | 3_land_use_plan.cdr
N
ORTH
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit 3
Land Use PlanSCALE IN FEET
2,0001,000 0 2,000
Source: West Ming Specific Plan Bakersfield, CA, January 2005.
NOTE:
1)UPON APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE ZONING
OF ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL BE
DESIGNATED WEST MING PLANNING PRESERVE (WM-
PR). THE WM-PR ZONE ALLOWS ALL EXISTING USES TO
CONTINUE, BUT DOES NOT ALLOW ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT UNTIL FINAL ZONING IS APPROVED.
FINAL ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES WILL OCCUR
CONCURRENT WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVALS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BAKERSFIELD ZONING ORDINANCE.
WM-RI
WM-R1
or
WM-R2
WM-R3
WM-CO
WM-GC
WM-TC
WM-SU
WM-OS
West Ming One Family
Dwelling Zone
West Ming One Family
Dwelling Zone
West Ming Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling Zone
West Ming Limited Multi-
Family Dwelling Zone
West Ming Professional &
Adminstrative Office Zone
West Ming General
Commercial Zone
West Ming Town Center
Zone
West Ming Special Use Zone
West Ming Open Space Zone
VILLAGE A
VILLAGE B
VILLAGE C
VILLAGE D
VILLAGE E
VILLAGE F
SPECIAL
USE
DISTRICT
POTENTIAL LIGHT RAIL
STATION LOCATION
VILLAGE
CENTER
DISTRICT
WM-GC
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R3
WM-R3
WM-R1/R2WM-R1/R2WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1
WM-R1
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1
WM-R1/R2
WM-R1
WM-OS
WM-OS
WM-OS
WM-OS
WM-TC
WM-TC
WM-TC
WM-CO
WM-CO
WM-SUWM-SU
WM-SU
WM-OS
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Village Boundary
Specific Plan Boundary
Michael Brandman Associates
02160029 • 05/2005 | 4_zoning.cdr
N
ORTH
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit 4
Zoning
Source: West Ming Specific Plan Bakersfield, CA, March 2005.
SCALE IN FEET
2,0691,034.5 0 2,069
Michael Brandman Associates
02160029 • 02/2005 | 5_proposed_project_phasing.cdr
N
ORTH
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit 5
Proposed Project Phasing
Source: West Ming Specific Plan Bakersfield, CA, January 2005.
SCALE IN FEET
2,1051,052.5 0 2,105
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
2. Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game 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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) 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?
6. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
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 which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
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, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
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, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
10. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
11. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. Population and Housing
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 substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
13. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
14. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
15. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
32 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. AESTHETICS
Existing Conditions
The vicinity of the project site is a mixture of urban and rural uses. Property east of the project site is
developed with urban uses characterized by residential subdivisions and scattered commercial
development. Property south and west of the project site is developed with agricultural uses
combined with scattered residential uses. The Kern River is located north of the project site. A small
oil field is located northwest of the project site near the Kern River. The project site is developed
with agricultural uses and oil field activities. The oil field activities are concentrated in the southeast
portion of the project site. The Kern River Canal bisects the northern portion of the project site.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan does not identify any scenic viewsheds, scenic
recreational areas, scenic vantage points, or scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. There are no scenic vistas on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore,
no impacts related to scenic vistas would result from implementation of the proposed
project.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no scenic resources on the project site and none of the
adjacent roadways are classified as a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, no impacts
related to damage of scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would result
from implementation of the proposed project.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and portions of the surrounding
environment, particularly south and east of the project site, contain visual resource
elements that may be considered by some individuals to be aesthetically unappealing.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
These elements include agricultural operations, oil wells, an irrigation canal, and a
branch railroad. The development of the project site would result in the elimination
of some of these elements, while creating a unique urban visual character in
conformance with the West Ming Specific Plan design guidelines. Therefore, less
than significant impacts related to the degradation of the visual character would result
from implementation of the proposed project.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The ten recreational lakes included in the proposed
project would reflect sunlight at certain times of the day and reflect artificial lighting
during the daytime and nighttime. Artificial lighting sources are expected to be in the
form of street lights and other low-level lighting, such as security lighting, signage,
and landscape lighting. These recreational lakes are included in the overall project
design and are an integral part of the proposed project. These lakes would allow for
water-related recreational activities and provide views of the lakes from select
buildings. Although light would be reflected from the surface of the recreational
lakes, it is not anticipated to be intense and blinding that would result in substantial
glare. Moreover, the recreational lakes are deemed to be a beneficial amenity of the
proposed project. The proposed development would be required to comply with the
mandatory obligations related to lighting and glare contained in the City’s municipal
code. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to light and glare would result
from implementation of the proposed project.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
The majority of the project site is currently used for agricultural production. In addition, land to the
south and west of the project site is used for agricultural production. The Kern River Canal bisects
the project site. As of the year 2003, 1,928 acres (88 %) of the project site was used for agricultural
production. The remainder of the project site was used for oil field activities and undeveloped land.
None of the project site is under the Williamson Act Land Use Contract, within an Agricultural
Preserve, or within a Farmland Security Zone. The project site is currently designated by the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as RI-A (Resource Intensive Agriculture, minimum 20-acre
parcel size). The portion of the project site located within the City limits is zoned A-2-A (Agriculture
Zone, 20 acre minimum). The portion of the project site located in unincorporated Kern County
contains the following zoning classifications: A (Exclusive Agriculture); FPP (Floodplain-Primary);
A-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-Geologic Hazard Combining); A-FPS (Exclusive Agriculture-
Floodplain-Secondary Combining); and A-FPS-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain-Secondary
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Combining-Geologic Hazard Combining). Soils on the project site consist of the following types:
Cajon Loamy Sand; Cajon Sandy Loam; Excelsior Sandy Loam; Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam; and
Wasco Sandy Loam.
Checklist Reponses
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would
convert the existing agricultural uses to non-agricultural urban uses and eliminate the
existing general plan designation and zoning classifications that are related to
agriculture. A farmland conversion technical study will be prepared for the proposed
project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to the conversion of
Farmland. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its
entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Significant Impact. None of the land on the project site is under a
Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impact would result in relation to this
program. However, the project site is designated as Resource Intensive Agriculture
by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and contains agricultural zoning
classifications under the City and Kern County. The EIR will evaluate the potentially
significant impacts that would result from changing the general plan designation and
the zoning classifications on the project site to a non-agricultural general plan
designation and non-agricultural zoning classification.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the project site with urban uses has
the potential to affect changes in the immediate vicinity of the project site that could
lead to the conversion of Farmland. The EIR will evaluate this potential in
accordance with the provisions of Policy No. 14 of Chapter 5 (Conservation of Soils
and Agriculture) of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan that includes the
following guidance:
When considering proposals to convert designated agricultural lands to non-
agricultural use, the decision making body of the City and the County shall
evaluate the following factors to determine the appropriateness of the proposal:
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Soil quality;
Availability of irrigation Water;
Proximity to non-agricultural uses;
Proximity to intensive parcelization;
Effect on properties subject to Williamson Act land use contracts;
Ability to be provided with urban services (sewer, water, roads, etc.);
Ability to affect the application of agricultural chemicals on nearby
agricultural properties;
Ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature
conversion of prime agricultural lands;
Demonstrated project need; and
Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc.
3. AIR QUALITY
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The climate in this basin is
characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Average temperatures in the region of
the project site are 65° Fahrenheit (F), with temperatures averaging 95°F during the summer months
and winter lows averaging 45°F. Airflow patterns in the vicinity of the project site are generally from
the north of the San Joaquin Valley to the south-southeast during the summer months and to the
north-northwest during the winter months. During the winter months, this pattern occasionally
reverses.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for enforcing the amendments to
the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards that it establishes. These
standards identify levels of air quality for six criteria pollutants, which are considered the maximum
levels of background air pollutants that are considered safe in order to protect the public health and
welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter (PM-10), and lead. The SJVAB is designated by the USEPA as an extreme non-
attainment area for ozone and as serious non-attainment for PM-10. Portions of the SJVAB
urbanized areas, which includes the project site, are designated as attainment and all of the non-
urbanized areas in the SJVAB are designated as unclassified for the federal CO standard. Federal
emissions standards for all other criteria pollutants are currently met within the SJVAB.
The California Air Resources Board of the California Environmental Protection Agency oversees air
quality planning and control throughout the State. These responsibilities include enforcing the
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), among other obligations. The amendments
to the CCAA establish ambient air quality standards for the State and a legal mandate to achieve these
standards by the earliest date practicable. These standards apply to the same six criteria pollutants
previously referenced, and also include standards related to sulfate, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride,
and visibility. Under the CCAA, the SJVAB is designated as an extreme non-attainment area for
ozone and PM-10.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) was created in 1991 and has the
responsibility of regulating emissions from sources other than motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD has
prepared a Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. This document is an advisory
document that provides Lead Agencies with a tool for evaluating potential air quality impacts on
proposed projects. The 2002 version of this document will be used in the evaluation of potential air
quality impacts.
Air quality emissions on the project are associated with the agricultural operations and oil field
activities and would consist of particulate matter (PM-10), volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxide,
and sulfur dioxide.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – e). The proposed project has the potential to
conflict with air quality planning, contribute to existing air quality problems, expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, and create objectionable odors. An air quality
technical study will be prepared for the proposed project to assist in the evaluation of
the potential impacts related to air quality and conformance with air quality planning.
This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an
appendix to the EIR.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
The project site is used for agricultural production consisting of onion, carrots, and corn. A portion of
the project site is used for oil field activities. Soils on the project site consist of the following types:
Cajon Loamy Sand; Cajon Sandy Loam; Excelsior Sandy Loam; Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam; and
Wasco Sandy Loam. No undisturbed native habitat exists on the project site. In addition, no riparian
habitat or wetlands are located on the project site. Historically, this native habitat likely consisted of
Non-Native Valley Grassland and Valley Saltbush Scrub. Several sensitive plant and animal species
are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site such as the California jewel-flower, the recurved
delphinium, the San Joaquin wolly threads, the Tipton kangaroo rat; and the San Joaquin kit fox.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan (MBHCP). The MBHCP addresses two categories of land: natural land, which is characterized
as grazing land with original soil and topography intact; and open land, which is characterized as
agricultural lands and other non-urban lands. The MBHCP identified six distinct ecological
communities within its planning boundaries. The MBHCP also identifies plant and animal species of
concern that are identified as rare or endangered.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – f). The project has the potential to impact
sensitive plant and animal species. A biota technical study will be prepared for the
proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to impacts
to biological resources and the MBHCP. This technical study will be summarized in
the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
Historically, the San Joaquin Valley was occupied by Native American groups for thousands of years
prior to settlement by non-Native American peoples. The Southern Valley Yokuts occupied the
general region of the project site. Currently, the project site is used for agricultural production
consisting of onion, carrots, and corn. Portions of the project site are used for oil field activities and
contain improvements and structures related to these activities. Soils on the project site consist of the
following types: Cajon Loamy Sand; Cajon Sandy Loam; Excelsior Sandy Loam; Kimberlina Fine
Sandy Loam; and Wasco Sandy Loam. No undisturbed native habitat exists on the project site. The
Kern River is located one-quarter mile north of the northern boundary of the project site. In addition,
no riparian habitat or wetlands are located on the project site.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – d). Development of the project site has the
potential to impact historical resources, archaeological resources, and paleontological
resources. A cultural resources study will be prepared for the proposed project to
assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to impacts to cultural
resources. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its
entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Existing Conditions
The project site is located within an alluvial plain between the Coast Ranges to the west and the
Sierra Nevada to the east. There are six active faults near the region that are capable of producing
seismically-related ground shaking on the project site. They are: the San Andreas; the Sierra Nevada;
the Garlock; the Breckenridge-Kern Canyon; the White Wolf; and the Pond Poso. Soils on the
project site consist of the following types: Cajon Loamy Sand; Cajon Sandy Loam; Excelsior Sandy
Loam; Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam; and Wasco Sandy Loam. The Kern River is located one-
quarter mile north of the northern boundary of the project site.
The project site is developed with agricultural uses and oil field activities. The oil field activities are
concentrated in the southeast portion of the project site. The Kern River Canal bisects the northern
portion of the project site.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – e). Development of the project site has the
potential to expose people residing and working on the project site to seismically
related ground shaking or other potential impacts related to poor or unstable soil
conditions due to the oil field activities. A geotechnical feasibility and geologic
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
hazard study will be prepared for the proposed project to assist in the evaluation of
the potential impacts related to seismicity and soil conditions. This technical study
will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Existing Conditions
The majority of the project site has been used for agricultural production from the early 1970s
through the present in which agricultural chemicals have been utilized. Oil field activities on the
subject property have occurred on the southern portion of the project site since the 1930s. Petroleum
pipelines, high-pressure natural gas pipelines, and smaller transfer piping bisect the project site. The
project site is bordered on the south by the Asphalto Branch Railroad. The project site is not located
within an airport land use plan.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – d). Development of the project site has the
potential to expose people residing or working on the project site to hazardous
materials resulting from the historic and existing agricultural production and oil field
activities. A hazardous materials study and natural resources (petroleum) study will
be prepared for the proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential
impacts related to exposure of persons to hazardous materials. This technical study
will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact (e-f). The project site is not located within two miles of a public use or
private airstrip. In addition, the project site is not located within an adopted airport
land use plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in
any impacts related to airports.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to response a through d, above.
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?
No Impact. According to the Natural Fire Hazard Disclosure map (Map No. NHD-
15) provided by the California Department of Forestry, the project site is not located
within or adjacent to a Wildland Fire Area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
impacts related to wildland fires.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Existing Conditions
The natural drainage of the project site is generally to the southwest, along and parallel to the main
drainage channel of the Kern River, which is located approximately one-quarter of a mile north of the
northern boundary of the project site. The project site is generally level with only minor variations in
elevation. The Kern River Canal bisects the project site and is operated by the City and is contracted
to deliver water to the Buena Vista Water Storage District for six months of the year; the canal is
empty the remaining six months of the year. Existing levees are parallel to the Kern River along
Ming Avenue and along Allen Road north of the project site.
The City owns and operates a 2,800-acre recharge groundwater recharge facility located along the
Kern River north of the project site, which is used to replenish the groundwater aquifers. This 6-mile
long site is comprised of old river channels, overflow lands, and constructed spreading basins. In
addition, a portion of the northwest corner of the project site is used for groundwater recharge by the
Kern County Water Agency.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the project site is located within the Lake
Isabella Dam Failure Inundation Area.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Oil field activities on the project site have resulted in an extensive network of wells associated with
this activity are located throughout the project site, with the greater concentration located in the
southern portion of the project site.
The entire northern portion of the site, north of the Kern River Canal, is currently within a FEMA
Zone “A” flood zone (areas of 100 year flood). In addition, a portion of the site to the south of the
Kern River Canal is within a FEMA Zone “A” flood zone, as is a small area of the southwestern
portion of the site.
Depth to the water at the subject property is approximately 80 to 140 feet. The general groundwater
gradient in the area of the subject property is to the southwest.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
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, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
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 which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
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, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – j). Implementation of the proposed project has
the potential to expose people and structures to flooding, interfere with groundwater
recharge, significantly modify the existing drainage patterns on and in the vicinity of
the project site, and potentially degrade water quality. A flood hazard safety study
and natural resources (petroleum) study will be prepared for the proposed project to
assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to flooding and water quality.
This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an
appendix to the EIR.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Existing Conditions
Approximately 640 acres of the project site are within the City limits; the remainder of the project
site, approximately 1,542 acres, is located in unincorporated Kern County. The Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan designates the majority of the project site as R-IA (Resource – Intensive
Agriculture). Small portions of the northwest corner of the project site are designated as R-MP
(Resource – Mineral Petroleum) and OS (Open Space). The portion of the project site located within
the City limits is zoned A-2-A (Agriculture Zone, 20 acre minimum). The portion of the project site
located in unincorporated Kern County contains the following zoning classifications: A (Exclusive
Agriculture); FPP (Floodplain-Primary); A-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-Geologic Hazard Combining);
A-FPS (Exclusive Agriculture-Floodplain-Secondary Combining); and A-FPS-GH (Exclusive
Agriculture-Floodplain-Secondary Combining-Geologic Hazard Combining).
The project site is currently developed with agricultural uses and oil field activities. The vicinity of
the project site is a mixture of urban and rural uses. Property east of the project site is developed with
urban uses characterized by residential subdivisions and scattered commercial development. Property
south and west of the project site is developed with agricultural uses with scattered residential uses.
The Kern River is located north of the project site. A small oil field is located northwest of the
project site near the Kern River. The Kern River Canal bisects the project site. The project site is
bordered on the south by the Asphalto Branch railroad.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
No Impact. The project site contains only one residential dwelling unit and scattered
structures related to oil field activities, none of which constitute a community.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the division of
an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact (b – c). Implementation of the proposed project has
the potential to conflict with plan, policies, and regulations associated with the
project site. In addition, the proposed project has the potential to conflict with the
provisions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan due to oil field
activities. The EIR will discuss and evaluate the potential impacts associated with
land use and planning.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
The southern portion of the project site overlies a portion of the East Gosford Area of the Canfield
Ranch Oil Field, which has been active since the late 1930s. As a result of this activity, the project
site contains active, producing wells and wells that are no longer active. The principal mineral
resources under development within the planning area of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan
are oil, natural gas, and sand and gravel. The region is a major oil-producing area, with substantial oil
and gas fields existing within the region.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designates the majority of the project site as R-IA
(Resource – Intensive Agriculture). Small portions of the northwest corner of the project site are
designated as R-MP (Resource – Mineral Petroleum) and OS (Open Space).
A Natural Resources Impact Report (NSIR) was prepared for the proposed project in order to
determine the potential for the proposed project to impact existing and planned oil field activities on
the project site. The NSIR determined that as of December 2003 there were active oil producing
wells on the project site. In addition, the NSIR determined that the project site also included active
water disposal wells, idle oil producing wells, oil producing wells under construction, and abandoned
wells. The NSIR determined that there is a remaining supply of approximately 3.5 million barrels of
oil to be produced in the East Gosford Area. As reported in the NSIR, the State of estimated the
remaining supply to be produced at 1.7 million barrels East Gosford Area. Depending on market
pricing for oil, the remaining supply would be exhausted in approximately 10 years.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
48 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Checklist Reponses
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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (a – b). The East Gosford Area of
the Canfield Ranch Oil Field is currently producing and has the potential to be
impacted by the development of the proposed project. However, the proposed
project includes a Special Use District that would allow continued oil well production
as an allowed use within this district either “by right” or conditionally permitted,
depending on the distance to structures. In addition, existing and future wells located
outside of the Special Use District could be accommodated in the land use plan by
the designation of single lots as drilling islands that would be used for the production
of oil and other related activities in conformance with Section 17.46.010 and Section
15.66 of the City Municipal Code. The following mitigation measure is
recommended:
MR-1 Require a petroleum integration plan to be submitted at the same tine an
application for a subdivision map is submitted that conforms to the
requirements of Section 17.46.010 and Section 15.66 of the City Municipal
Code.
Therefore, with the implementation of this recommended mitigation measure, less
than significant impacts related to mineral resources would result from project
implementation.
11. NOISE
Existing Conditions
Sources of noise in the general vicinity of the project site would be from the following: roadways,
railroad operations, agricultural equipment operations, oil field operations, and occasional noise from
residential sources located in the vicinity of the project site. There are no industrial facilities or
airports in the vicinity of the project site that generate noise. Noise sensitive uses are typically
residential areas, schools, convalescent hospitals and acute care facilities, and parks and recreational
areas.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Checklist Reponses
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – d). Development of the proposed project has
the potential to expose people residing or working on the project site to temporary
and permanent increased noise levels beyond established standards, and
groundbourne vibration. A noise study will be prepared for the proposed project to
assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to noise resulting from short-
term, construction-related activities and also from long-term operations on and in the
vicinity of the project site. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and
included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact (e – f). The project site is not located within two miles of a public use
airport or a private airstrip, or within the boundaries of an adopted airport land use
plan. Therefore, no impacts related to airports would result from project
implementation.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Existing Conditions
The project site is devoted to agricultural production and oil field activities. There is one residence
on the project site.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the project site would result in the
addition of a substantial number of dwelling units and business uses that could have
the potential to induce additional growth in the vicinity of the project site. The EIR
will discuss and evaluate the potential impacts associated with the additional housing
and businesses proposed on the project site.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact (b – c). There is one residential dwelling unit located
on the project site that would be eliminated as a result of development of the
proposed project. However, elimination of this dwelling unit does not represent a
substantial number of either residential structures or people that would be displaced
by the proposed project. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to the
displacement of housing and people would result from implementation of the
proposed project.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Existing Conditions
Public services and facilities consist of the provision of fire and police protection services, provision
of school facilities, sewer services, domestic waster service, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and
solid waste collection and disposal.
Fire Services. The City provides fire protection and emergency medical response services to
the portion of the project site within the City limits and the Kern County Fire Department
provides the same service to the unincorporated portion of the project site. The City and
Kern County maintain a Joint Powers agreement that determines agency functions within the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
Police Services. The City Police Department currently provides police protection services to
the portion of the project site within its jurisdiction. The Kern County Sheriff’s Department
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 51
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
provides police protection services to the remainder of the project site. The City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern have a formal mutual aid agreement for law enforcement
and emergency services.
School Districts. The project site is located within the Panama-Buena Vista Union School
District and Kern High School District. The Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
operates sixteen elementary schools (grades K-6) and four Junior High Schools (grades 7-8).
District enrollment is currently about 13,500 students. The Kern High School District
currently operates 10 high schools within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and is the only
high school district serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Stockdale High School
currently serves the project site.
Electricity/Natural Gas/Telephone. Electricity is provided by Pacific gas and Electric;
natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric and the Southern California Gas
Company; and telephone service is provided by SBC.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the following public services?
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – e). Development of the proposed project would
convert the project site from the existing agricultural and oil field uses to urban uses
that would result in the need for new and expanded public services, related
emergency services including police and fire protection, an increased demand for
school and park facilities, and an extension of other facilities such as electricity,
natural gas, and telephone. A public services study will be prepared for the proposed
project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to theses services on
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
52 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
the project site. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in
its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
14. RECREATION
Existing Conditions
No recreational or park facilities currently exist on the project site.
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – b). The increase in population that would result
from the proposed project could have the potential to increase demand on existing
recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site that may accelerate
deterioration. In addition, the project proposes substantial recreational amenities on
the project site, and that would connect to existing off-site recreational uses that
could have the potential to result in adverse impacts. A public services study, which
includes a recreational component, will be prepared for the proposed project to assist
in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to recreational amenities. This
technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an
appendix to the EIR.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Existing Conditions
Roadways in the vicinity of the project site are comprised of arterial roadways, collector roadways,
and local roadways. No publicly dedicated roadways exist on the project site.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 53
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
Checklist Reponses
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. Refer to response 7(f).
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – b, d – g). Development of the proposed project
has the potential to substantially increase traffic in the vicinity of the project site and
exceed established levels of service standards for existing intersections in the vicinity
of the project site, conflict with existing farming operations in the vicinity of the
project site, and result in inadequate emergency access, parking capacity, and
alternative transportation policies. A traffic study will be prepared for the proposed
project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to traffic and
circulation on and in the vicinity of the project site. This technical study will be
summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently used for agricultural operations and oil field activities. Wastewater
treatment for the existing residential unit is accomplished through an on-site septic and leach field
system. No stormwater conveyance features exist on the project site.
Solid Waste Services. In 1992, the Kern County Waste Management Department opened the
Metropolitan Bakersfield (Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Bena is the County’s first fully lined
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
54 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
landfill and serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Currently the County has permission to
develop 48 acres of the 2,165-acre site for waste disposal. If the California Integrated Waste
Management Board grants additional permits to develop the remainder of the site and waste
diversion stabilizes at 50 percent, potential total capacity for the Bena Landfill site exceeds
60 years. According to the Kern County Waste Management Siting Element 2003 Annual
Report, the anticipated disposal capacity of the Bena landfill in the year 2018 is 579,265 tons
per year with the remaining capacity, as of January 1, 2003, of 22,367,758 tons.
Wastewater Services. The Metropolitan Bakersfield area is served by five major wastewater
treatment facilities: City Treatment Plant Nos. 2 and 3, the North of the River Sanitary
District (NORSD) plant, Mount Vernon/Panorama District plant, and the Lamont Public
Utility District Plant (located outside the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary).
There are several small, temporary treatment facilities in the Rosedale area north of the Kern
River, and west of NORSD’s service area boundaries. The City Treatment Plant No. 3 would
serve the proposed project. Currently sewer trunk lines are located in Allen Road (south to
White Lane) and Buena Vista Road.
Domestic Water Supply. The physical supply of water to residents and businesses
throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield is provided by a series of water districts and private
water supply companies. The majority of the City is served by California Water Service
Company, a privately held public utility; its water supply is obtained principally from 187
wells and supplemented by Improvement District No. 4 (ID 4 – treated State Water Project
surface supply water). Several domestic water wells are located within the project site
boundaries.
Checklist Reponses
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?
Potentially Significant Impact (a – b). The proposed project would require
additional wastewater treatment capacity that would require the construction of new
conveyance facilities and could require the expansion of an existing wastewater
treatment plant. A wastewater study and a public services study will be prepared for
the proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to
wastewater services. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and
included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 55
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the project site would alter the
existing drainage patterns on the project site and require the construction of new
stormwater conveyance facilities. A flood hazard study will be prepared for the
proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to
stormwater. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in its
entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would require an additional
supply of domestic water in order to supply the proposed development and to supply
the proposed recreational lakes. A water supply assessment will be prepared for the
proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential impacts related to
domestic water supply on the project site. This technical study will be summarized in
the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to discussion under (a-b), above.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Potentially Significant Impact (f – g). Development of the project site would result
in the generation of substantial amounts of solid waste. A public services study will
be prepared for the proposed project to assist in the evaluation of the potential
impacts related to collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste generated on
the project site. This technical study will be summarized in the EIR and included in
its entirety as an appendix to the EIR.
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study
56 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would convert existing
agricultural fields oil field activities to urban uses. As a result, undeveloped portions
of the site or portions of the project site used for agricultural production that may
serve as habitat would be permanently converted to urban uses. This conversion is
potentially significant but is not anticipated to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment in the vicinity of the project site or cause wildlife populations to drop
below self-sustaining levels, or threaten or eliminate an entire plant or animal
community or reduce their number or restrict their range. Although it is not
anticipated that examples of prehistory would be eliminated, archaeological and or
paleontological artifacts could be uncovered in subsurface conditions during the
construction phase of the project.
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)?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area that is
undergoing conversion from rural to urban uses. As a result of this conversion to
more intensive urban uses, cumulative effects are expected that are related to traffic
and air quality.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes residential
development, commercial uses where people would shop, and business uses where
people would work. The proposed development would be required to conform to
mandatory obligations relating to safety. The project would not expose people to
substantial adverse effects, either directly or indirectly.
West Ming Specific Plan – Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 57
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Initial Study\02160029 IS & NOP.doc
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
City of Bakersfield and Kern County, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, adopted December 11,
2002.
City of Bakersfield, Cal., Bakersfield Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 (1999).
City of Bakersfield and Kern County, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Program
Environmental Impact Report, 2002.
City of Bakersfield website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/planning/
West Ming Specific Plan, March 2005.