Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02160029_Sec07-00 AlternativesWest Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, mandates that an EIR include a comparative evaluation of the proposed project with the alternatives to the project, including a No Project Alternative. This section focuses on alternatives, as identified in Section 15126(d)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, to the West Ming Specific Plan that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project--even if these alternatives would to some degree impede attainment of project objectives or be more costly. The alternatives may result in new impacts that would not result from the proposed project. CEQA requires that this analysis discuss whether the alternatives and related mitigation measures would be preferable to the proposed project. Case law suggests that discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and that alternatives be subject to reasonable construction. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(3) states that impacts of the alternatives may be discussed “in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” This Draft EIR evaluates two alternatives: • No Project/No Development Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative • Alternative Site An Environmentally Superior Alternative will be selected from among the alternative evaluated in this Draft EIR. An alternative that is environmentally superior will result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts and will achieve the project objectives of the planning effort. As stated in Section 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project objectives are to: 1. Provide a master planned community with residential, commercial, and industrial development of sufficient scale to permit master planning of infrastructure, parks, open space, and public services to achieve the greatest possible efficiencies and synergies. 2. Establish a new mixed-use center as defined in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 3. Provide a development in southwest Bakersfield that is a focal point of activity and includes a mix of land uses as identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. 4. Provide a full mix of land uses to support the project’s population. 5. Provide employment opportunities to assist in meet the Kern COG employment growth projections for the City. 6. Provide residential uses to meet the housing demand specified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element. Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-2 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc 7. Provide development similar to and consistent with existing or approved development in southwest Bakersfield to maintain and enhance property values and enhance compatibility of neighborhood character. 8. Provide a range of housing types on the project site. 9. Provide a master plan development so that land uses are phased in a programmed manner coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements necessary to accommodate such growth. 10. Locate development to meet anticipated growth in areas of relatively lesser environmental sensitivity, accommodating growth while balancing environmental considerations. 11. Provide parks which satisfy park dedication requirements and meet recreational needs of local residents including both active and passive recreational facilities. 12. Locate a master planned community adjacent to a major highway arterials to better promote efficient traffic flows and minimize traffic demands on local and collective streets. 13. Cluster as much housing as possible near major traffic arterials to minimize congestion, air quality, noise, and safety impact on collector and neighborhood streets. 14. Promote growth in areas as directed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The analysis of the alternative assumes that all applicable mitigation measures associated with the project will be implemented with the appropriate alternative. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid a potential impact of the alternative under consideration and may not precisely match those identified for the West Ming Specific Plan. While specific phasing of the plan alternatives has not been developed, the alternative would be similarly phased. As with the proposed project, the phasing concept for the alternatives is to develop the property over a twenty-year period. 7.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the entire project site would remain unchanged and no new development would occur onsite. In general, the West Ming development project area would continue to exist as prime agriculture land supporting agricultural uses and oil operations. 7.1.1 - Impact Analysis Agriculture The No Project Alternative would not result in the conversion and loss of approximately 2,182 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses, including the loss of approximately 1,204 acres of soil capability Class I and II prime agricultural farmland. As identified in Section 5.1, Agriculture Resources and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will contribute to a significant and unavoidable adverse impact to agricultural resources. The No Project Alternative West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc would preclude the land use change that will result in a commitment of Prime Farmland to non- agricultural uses. Since the No Project Alternative will result in retaining the Prime Farmland within the proposed project area, this alternative is considered to have less agricultural impacts in relation to the proposed project. Air Quality No new short-term construction or long-term operational air quality emissions would occur as a result of the No Project Alternative, yet existing agricultural-related emission would still occur. As identified in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, with the implementation of mitigation measures and the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the proposed project will not result in significant air quality impacts. However, since this alternative would not result in development that would create increased air emissions, the No Project Alternative is considered to have less air quality impacts in relation to the proposed project. Biological Resources The project site would remain unchanged from its current condition as agricultural land. Although much of this habitat is highly disturbed, these areas provide suitable habitat for a variety of common plant and wildlife species, some of which are sensitive species. Development of the proposed project would eliminate suitable foraging habitat for mammal and raptor species, in addition to reducing or eliminating some plant and wildlife populations that occur on the site. However, the project site has been heavily disturbed and continues to be impacted by agriculture and oil exploration activities. Yet, since the No Project Alternative would not disturb the agriculture land, this alternative is considered to have less biological resources impacts in relation to the proposed project. Cultural Resources The project site has been known to contain archaeological resources. No historical or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site. Project implementation will involve earth-moving activities, that may affect unknown archaeological and paleontological resources. These potential effects could be significant. The No Project Alternative would continue to disturb the ground surface from agricultural activities. These continued activities are expected to result in less impacts to cultural resources compared to the potential deep excavations required for footing and utilities that are associated with the project. Geology and Soils The project site is subject to earthquakes and seismic ground shaking. In addition, the project site may be subject to secondary seismic effects, such as expansive soils. The No Project Alternative would not result in the development of new structures within a seismically active area, which is susceptible to secondary seismic effects. Therefore, no impacts would occur under this alternative. As identified in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project is considered to have less than significant geology and soil impacts. However, since the No Project Alternative would not result in the Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-4 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc development of any new buildings and, therefore, have fewer residents located within a seismic hazard area, this alternative is considered to have less geology and soil impacts in relation to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is agricultural land that has been utilized for agriculture purposes. Oil exploration has also occurred on this site. A recent site reconnaissance and an environmental database review revealed that the project site is not located on a Hazardous Site and Substance List. The proposed project is anticipated to introduce hazardous materials into the project area in the short-term during construction and in the long-term through the use of common household hazardous wastes (HHW), such as pesticides, fertilizers, and janitorial products. As identified in Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the project’s potential hazardous materials impacts can be mitigated to levels considered less than significant. Thus, since this alternative would not introduce any new sources of hazardous materials to the project site, the No Project Alternative is considered to have less hazardous materials impacts in relation to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is known to experience drainage and flooding issues, and these are considered significant impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, these drainage and flooding issues, would continue to impact hydrology and water quality. Project implementation will involve expanding and constructing of a levee system, which will mitigate the potential flooding impacts. In addition, project implementation will involve construction of a drainage system (i.e., detention and retention basins), which will mitigate the potential drainage impacts. As identified in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the project’s potential drainage and flooding issues can be mitigated to levels less than significant. The No Project Alternative could also include a levee or drainage system, and therefore, this alternative is considered to have the same hydrology and water quality impacts in relation to the proposed project. Noise The No Project Alternative would not result in any of the short-term construction or long-term operational phase noise impacts associated with the proposed project. As identified in Section 6, Cumulative Impacts of this Draft EIR, the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative noise increase is considered a significant impact and no feasible mitigation measures are available for the project applicant to reduce noise level increases from the proposed project’s contribution. The project’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases would remain significant and unavoidable; even though the noise levels would not exceed 65 dB CNEL, which is the City’s exterior noise level standard. However, the No Project alternative would not alter the noise environment at the site, and it would not result in exposing future populations to increased noise levels in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered to have less noise impacts in relation to the proposed project. West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc Public Services The project site is agricultural land and is currently provided fire protection and emergency medical response services by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. The City of Bakersfield currently provides police services to the project site. The project site is also located within an established school district. The impact of the increase in population of school-aged students will require this impact to be mitigated. As identified in Section 5.9, Public Services and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will contribute to a less then significant impact if the impacts are properly mitigated. However, since the No Project Alternative would not result in any additionally population, this alternative is considered to have fewer impacts on public services in relation to the proposed project. Recreation The No Project Alternative would not result in any parks or recreational facilities to be constructed on the project site. The West Ming development project currently calls for an adequate number of park acres and facilities to be constructed in accordance with the increase in population. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered to have the same impacts on parks and recreation compared to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic The No Project Alternative would not contribute to generation of any additional traffic within the proposed project area or result in construction-related vehicle trips. As identified in Section 5, Transportation and Traffic and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will contribute to significant traffic impacts in the years 2015 and 2030. These impacts can be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures with the exception of certain roadway segments that began at or below LOS C without the project. However, since the No Project Alternative would not result in any additional traffic generation, this alternative is considered to have less transportation and traffic impacts in relation to the proposed project. Utilities and Service Systems The project site does not currently contain any substantial utilities or service systems. The No Project Alternative would not result in any additional utility or service systems to be constructed on the project site. The City of Bakersfield currently has enough water to supply the proposed project. However, a new domestic water system would be required to reach and distribute the groundwater within the project site. The proposed project would also A new wastewater facility would not need to construct, additional sewer lines. The No Project Alternative is considered to have less utility and service system impacts in relation to the proposed project. Population and Housing The No Project Alternative would not result in any new housing units to be constructed on the proposed project site, and therefore, no increase in population. The proposed project currently calls for 7,450 new residential units that will correspond to an additional 19,020 increase in population. Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-6 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered to have fewer impacts on population and housing in relation to the proposed project. 7.1.2 - Conclusions The No Project Alternative would result in fewer agriculture, air quality, transportation and traffic, noise, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, population and housing, impacts in relation to the proposed project. This alternative could have the same hydrology and water quality impact compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet the project’s objectives as outlined above. It also does not serve to further the planning vision of the City, which as set forth in the City’s General Plan, indicates the City’s desire to promote residential development and expansion in southwest Bakersfield. 7.2 - Reduced Intensity Alternative Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the proposed project site would be developed, but to a lesser degree. In general, this Alternative would include a lesser area of residential development compared to the proposed project. Specifically, under this Alternative, the area north of the Kern River Canal known as Village A under the proposed Specific Plan project would not be developed for residential use; rather, this land would remain as the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan currently designates it. This land uses includes R-IA (Intensive Agriculture and Minimum 20 acre Parcel Size), as well as R-MP (Mineral Petroleum and Minimum 5 acre Parcel) and OS (Open Space, includes Resource Management Areas, Agriculture and Floodplains). This area of distinctive agriculture land is approximately 448 acres (20 percent) of the 2,182-acre project site, which would leave approximately 1,734 acres (80 percent) south of the Kern River Canal to be developed. This Alternative includes the construction of a maximum 6,650 dwelling units on the site. This Alternative would result in a density of 3.83 units per gross acre. This Alternative assumes that the 6,650 units would be constructed on approximately 1,734 acres south of the Kern River Canal in a comparable design to the proposed West Ming Specific Plan project (circulation and public service systems, Villages B-F and Village Center). As with the proposed project, this Alternative includes the improvement of the existing levee system due to the 448-acre area located within a 100-year flood zone (Zone A). As identified in Section 5.1, according to the list established by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and included in the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service), the entire project site has been categorized as Prime Farmland. Prime Farmland is of economic value to the region and provides many benefits to the community, thus it is important to save this resource. Accordingly, the main purpose of this Alternative is to leave a portion of the project site as undeveloped prime agricultural farmland. West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc 7.2.1 - Impact Analysis Agriculture The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the conversion and loss of approximately 1,734 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses, including the loss of soil capability Class I and II prime agricultural farmland. As identified in Section 5.1, Agriculture Resources and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will result in the conversion and loss of approximately 2,182 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses and contribute to a significant and unavoidable adverse impact to agricultural resources. However, this Alternative would conserve the approximate 448-acre area north of the Kern River Canal that encompasses soils of capability Class I and II irrigated prime agricultural farmland, the loss of which is considered a significant adverse impact. Specifically, of the 448 acres (20 percent of 2,182 acres), approximately 300 acres (14 percent of 2,182 acres) are soils of capability Class I and II irrigated prime agricultural farmland with Storie Indexes between 80 and 100. Accordingly, this Alternative would conserve approximately 25 percent of the 1,204 acres of these unique types of Prime Farmland soils, as compared to the loss of all soils and preclusion of agricultural uses under the proposed project. Since this Alternative would result in retaining some Prime Farmland within the proposed project area, this alternative is considered to have less agricultural impacts in relation to the proposed project. Air Quality Air quality impacts are primarily a result of vehicle emissions. Accordingly, these impacts occur during short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project. In the short-term, construction activities, such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth will generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter that will affect air quality. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is anticipated to result in similar short-term air quality impacts compared to the proposed project because this Alternative would result in similar grading. This Alternative would be subject to the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of mitigation measures similar to those identified in Section 5.2, Air Quality, would reduce short-term air quality impacts to less than significant levels. In the long-term, this Alternative would result in a fewer number of vehicle trips resulting in a lower volume of air quality emissions compared to the proposed project because this Alternative would consist of a maximum 6,650 dwelling units, and the proposed project will result in a maximum of 7,450 dwelling units. Therefore, this Alternative would result in fewer emissions (i.e., ozone precursors) than the proposed project to mitigate long-term impacts. This Alternative would result in approximately 20 percent less daily vehicle trips than the proposed project within the project area; therefore, this Alternative is considered to have fewer air quality impacts (prior to implementation of mitigation measures) compared to the proposed project. Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-8 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc Biological Resources The project site was used for agricultural production; the remaining of the project site was used for oil and gas activities as well as water facilities. As discussed in Section 5.3 of this Draft EIR, while much of this habitat is highly disturbed, these areas provide suitable habitat for a variety of common plant and wildlife species, some of which are sensitive species. Development of the proposed project would eliminate suitable foraging habitat for mammal and raptor species, in addition to reducing or eliminating some plant and wildlife populations that occur on the site. Whereas, this Alternative would conserve approximately 448 acres of agricultural land and preclude the destruction of suitable habitat. However, the project site has been heavily disturbed and continues to be impacted by agriculture and oil exploration activities. Since this Alternative would result in less grading than the proposed project, the impacts on biological resources are expected to be less for this Alternative. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this Alternative will contribute to an overall increase in human activity and reduction in open space in the project area. This Alternative would also result in the same amount of disturbances, but with less traffic, a lower human use of the site, and decrease human intrusion and activity levels in proximity to habitat areas and wildlife use areas. Overall, this Alternative would result in slightly less biological resources impacts compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources The project site has been known to contain archaeological resources. No historical or paleontological resources have been identified on the project site. Project implementation will involve earth-moving activities, that may affect unknown archaeological and paleontological resources. These potential effects could be significant. This alternative would result in disturbing less of the project site for urban uses. Therefore, this alternative would result in less potential impacts on cultural resources compared to the proposed project Geology and Soils The project site is subject to earthquakes and seismic ground shaking. In addition, the project site may be subject to secondary seismic effects, such as liquefaction. In comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in decreased development in a seismically active area, which is susceptible to secondary seismic effects. As with the proposed project, this Alternative would be subject to the California Building Code with Specific Amendments (CBC) and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.5 of this Draft EIR. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, both the proposed project and this Alternative are considered to have less than significant geology and soil impacts. Moreover, since the Reduced Intensity Alternative results in fewer residential structures and, thus, fewer residents located within a seismic hazard area, this Alternative is considered to have fewer geology and soil impacts compared to the proposed project. West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is agricultural land that has been utilized for agriculture purposes. Oil exploration has also occurred on this site. A recent site reconnaissance and an environmental database review revealed that the project site is not located on a Hazardous Site and Substance List. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project (residential); yet the development associated with this Alternative would be less intense, resulting in approximately 800 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Typical of residential, commercial and industrial land uses, activities at the project site would result in the use, storage, and disposal of household hazardous waste (HHW) which includes janitorial and cleaning products; fertilizers; paints; solvents; insecticides, etc. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an incremental decrease of such products, proportionate to the decrease in residential development. As discussed in Section 5.6 of this Draft EIR, the County of Kern operates HHW collection facilities, at which residents could properly dispose of such wastes. There is the likelihood that some residents would improperly dispose of HHW, yet this likelihood would be lowered with a decrease in development. Furthermore, as outlined in Section 5.6, the typical residential use of HHW is too low to warrant a significant hazard if improperly disposed. Thus, since the Reduced Residential Land Use Alternative would result in less use of such products, this Alternative is considered to have a lower hazards and hazardous materials impacts compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is known to experience drainage and flooding issues and these are considered significant impacts. Project implementation will involve expanding and constructing of a levee system, which will mitigate the potential flooding impacts. In addition, project implementation will involve constructing of a drainage system (i.e., detention and retention basins), which will mitigate the potential drainage impacts. As identified in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the project’s potential drainage and flooding issues can be mitigated to levels less than significant. Under this alternative, these drainage and flooding issues would not continue to impact hydrology and water quality because the levee system improvements under the proposed project would also be implemented under this Alternative. For the reasons identified above, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. However, given that greater urban development would occur under the proposed project, the alternative could result in less impacts on water quality compared to the proposed project. Noise Similar to air quality impacts, noise impacts are primarily associated with vehicle trips and occur in both the short-term and the long-term. Short-term noise impacts are associated with earthmoving activities and construction equipment. This Alternative would require less grading because approximately 448 acres in the northern portion of the site would not be developed. Therefore, less construction noise impacts would occur under this Alternative compared to the project. This Alternative would also be required to limit the hours of construction as outlined in Section 5.8, Noise, Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-10 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc of this Draft EIR. Adherence to the construction hour regulations and the construction-related mitigation measure in Section 5.8 would reduce this Alternative’s short-term noise impacts to less than significant levels. As identified in Section 6, Cumulative Impacts of this Draft EIR, the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative noise increase is considered a significant impact and no feasible mitigation measures are available for the project applicant to reduce noise level increases from the proposed project’s contribution. The project’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases would remain significant and unavoidable; whereas the noise levels would not exceed 65 dB CNEL, which is the City’s exterior noise level standard. However, this Alternative would result in approximately 20 percent less daily vehicle trips than the proposed project within the project area; therefore, this Alternative is considered to have approximately 20 percent fewer impacts on the noise environment at the site and project area compared to the proposed project. Therefore, less long-term noise impacts would be generated under this Alternative compared to the proposed project. Public Services The project site is agricultural land and is currently provided fire protection and emergency medical response services by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. The City of Bakersfield currently provides police services to the project site. The project site is also located within an established school district. The impact of the increase in population of school-aged students will require this impact to be mitigated. As identified in Section 5.10, Public Services and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will contribute to a less then significant impact if the impacts are properly mitigated. This Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project (residential) and; yet the development associated with this Alternative would be less intense, resulting in approximately 800 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, since this Alternative would result in less additional population compared to the proposed project, this Alternative is considered to have fewer public service impacts compared to the proposed project. Recreation The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in parks or recreational facilities (e.g., trails) to be constructed on the project site south of the Kern River Canal similar to the proposed project. The proposed project currently calls for an adequate number of park acres and facilities to be constructed in accordance with the increase in population. This Alternative would also require an adequate number of park acres and facilities to be constructed in accordance with the increase in population, which is less compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this Alternative is considered to have the same impacts on parks and recreation compared to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic The Reduced Residential Intensity Alternative would result in approximately 20 percent less daily vehicle trips than the proposed project within the project area. As identified in Section 5.9, Transportation and Traffic and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc will contribute to significant traffic impacts in the years 2015 and 2030. These impacts can be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures with the exception of certain roadway segments that began at or below LOS C without the project. Under this Alternative, less traffic is anticipated to result in less impacts to the roadway network (i.e., intersections and roadway segments). As a result, fewer improvements than those identified for the proposed project may be required. As with the proposed project, the implementation of this Alternative would require the fair share payment of the RTIF and the local mitigation fee for improvements to the local and area-wide transportation system. Overall, this Alternative would introduce less traffic onto the project area roadways; thus, this Alternative is considered to have less transportation and circulation impacts compared to the proposed project. Population and Housing As previously stated, this Alternative would result in the construction of a maximum 6,650 dwelling units on approximately 1,734 acres of land south of the Kern River Canal in a comparable design to the proposed project (circulation and public service systems, Villages B-F and Village Center, etc.). Whereas, the proposed project currently calls for 7,480 new residential units that will correspond to an additional 19,020 increase in population as a result. This Alternative would result in a density of 3.83 units per gross acre compared to the proposed project’s density of 3.41 units per gross acre. The Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project (residential) and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.12 of this Draft EIR; yet the development associated with this Alternative would be less intense, resulting in approximately 800 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, for reasons discussed above, this Alternative is considered to have fewer impacts on population and housing compared to the proposed project. Utilities and Service Systems The project site does not currently contain any substantial utilities or service systems. Both the proposed project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the construction of additional utilities and service systems on the project site. The City of Bakersfield currently has enough water to supply the proposed project as well as this Alternative. However, a new domestic water system would be required to reach and distribute the groundwater to the project site. This Alternative would result in a similar development as the proposed project (residential) and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.13 of this Draft EIR; yet the development associated with this Alternative would be less intense, resulting in approximately 800 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, for reasons discussed above, this Alternative is considered to have fewer impacts on utilities and service systems compared to the proposed project. 7.2.2 - Conclusions The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in fewer agriculture, air quality, transportation and traffic, noise, geology and soils, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, utilities and service systems, and population and housing, impacts in Alternatives West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR 7-12 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc relation to the proposed project. This alternative would result in the same impacts to recreation compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar development to the proposed project (circulation and public service systems, Villages B-F and Village Center, etc.) and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5, Project Impacts, and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, of this Draft EIR. However, the development associated with this Alternative would be less intense, resulting in approximately 800 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. The proposed project and this Alternative, would result in various environmental impacts, many of which would result in less than significant environmental impacts after implementing the recommended mitigation measures; however, this Alternative would result in less overall environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, under this Alternative, the potential impacts associated with traffic, increased noise levels and agricultural resources would all be reduced, but these impacts are still expected to be significant. Regardless, this Alternative would not meet the project’s objectives as outlined above. It also does not serve to further the planning vision of the City, which as set forth in the City’s General Plan, indicates the City’s desire to promote residential development and expansion in southwest Bakersfield in a manner as the proposed project. This Alternative would contribute less units (i.e., 800 units) and thus development in the area would fall even shorter of meeting the goal of accommodating growth in the southwest area. Moreover, if as a result, growth pressures are transferred to other areas, these potential development areas may not meet the objectives of locating growth near major transportation arterials and adjacent to existing or developing neighborhoods, or these areas may have more significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, contravening the General Plan goals and policies to promote growth which has the least possible impacts on environmental resources. Overall, this Alternative is assumed to inflict fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, yet it does not satisfy the project’s objectives. 7.3 - Alternative Site An alternative site for the proposed West Ming Specific Plan was examined in the southwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The objective of the project applicant is to develop a master planned community in an area that is current designated as a future mixed-use center in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The General Plan identifies two future mixed use areas in the southwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. One of the sites is the project site. The second site is located south of the project site, southwest of Taft Highway and Buena Vista Road. This location could potentially meet the objectives of the proposed project because it is located in the vicinity of a major highway arterial (i.e., Taft Highway). This alternative would include the same land uses as the proposed project and located on 2,182 acres. Based on a review of the general vicinity of the Alternative Site, it is currently in agriculture. Therefore, implementation of this Alternative Site would not reduce the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the loss of agriculture. The Alternative Site would West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Alternatives Michael Brandman Associates 7-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc include the same uses as the proposed project; therefore, the project would include the same traffic volumes and potentially the same impacts to the levels of service along roadway segments and increases in noise levels. Given that the Alternative Site is located further from urban development compared to the project site, additional impacts associated with public services and utilities would occur. The nearest urban development is located approximately two miles north of the Alternative Site. Given that the Alternative Site and the project site are relatively flat and under agricultural cultivation, similar impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials are expected to be the same. Since the Alternative Site and the proposed project includes the same level of development, impacts related to air quality, noise, traffic, recreation, and population and housing are expected to be the same. Given that the Alternative Site could result in substantially greater impacts related to public services and utilities extending to the site, this alternative would not be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative could meet many of the objectives of the proposed project. 7.4 - Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, as in this case, the City must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives considered in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6). Comparing the remaining alternatives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. Under this Alternative, the potential impacts associated with traffic, increased noise levels and agricultural resources would all be reduced; however, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Because this alternative would have fewer alternative impacts than the proposed project, this Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, this Alternative would not meet the project’s objectives as outlined above and it also does not serve to further the planning vision of the City in southwest Bakersfield, which as set forth in the City’s General Plan, indicates the City’s desire to promote residential and other development and expansion to the degree as planned under the proposed project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would contribute less units than the proposed project and thus development in the area would fall even shorter of meeting the goal of accommodating growth in the southwest area. Moreover, if as a result, growth pressures are transferred to other areas, these potential development areas may not meet the objectives of locating growth near major transportation arterials and adjacent to existing or developing neighborhoods, or these areas may have more significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, contravening the General Plan goals and policies to promote growth which has the least possible impacts on environmental resources.