HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 1_Draft EIRWest Ming Specific Plan - Recirculated Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Recirculated DEIR\02160029_ Recirculated DEIR.doc
Chapter 1: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Draft
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:
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
for
West Ming Specific Plan
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_Sec00-TOC.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 - Purpose of the EIR...........................................................................................1-1
1.2 - Scope of the EIR..............................................................................................1-4
1.3 - Lead Agency and Contact Persons..................................................................1-8
1.4 - Review of the Draft EIR....................................................................................1-9
Section 2: Executive Summary.........................................................................................2-1
2.1 - Proposed Project..............................................................................................2-1
2.2 - Areas of Controversy/Issues To Be Resolved.................................................2-1
2.3 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects.................................2-1
2.4 - Summary of Alternatives..................................................................................2-2
2.5 - Mitigation and Monitoring Program..................................................................2-2
2.6 - Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures......2-2
Section 3: Project Description..........................................................................................3-1
3.1 - Project Location...............................................................................................3-1
3.2 - Project Site Background...................................................................................3-1
3.3 - Site Development Constraints..........................................................................3-1
3.4 - Project Characteristics.....................................................................................3-2
3.5 - Project Objectives..........................................................................................3-37
3.6 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR......................................................................3-38
Section 4: General Description Of Environmental Setting.............................................4-1
Section 5: Project Impacts.............................................................................................5.1-1
5.1 - Agriculture Resources...................................................................................5.1-1
5.2 - Air Quality......................................................................................................5.2-1
5.3 - Biological Resources.....................................................................................5.3-1
5.4 - Cultural Resources........................................................................................5.4-1
5.5 - Geology and Soils.........................................................................................5.5-1
5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................5.6-1
5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................5.7-1
5.8 - Noise.............................................................................................................5.8-1
5.9 - Public Services..............................................................................................5.9-1
5.10 - Recreation.................................................................................................5.10-1
5.11 - Transportation and Traffic.........................................................................5.11-1
5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................5.12-1
5.13 - Population and Housing............................................................................5.13-1
Section 6: Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................6-1
6.1 - CEQA Requirements........................................................................................6-1
6.2 - Cumulative Impact Setting...............................................................................6-1
6.3 - Cumulative Impact Analysis.............................................................................6-1
Section 7: Alternatives......................................................................................................7-1
7.1 - No Project/No Development Alternative...........................................................7-2
7.2 - Reduced Intensity Alternative..........................................................................7-6
7.3 - Alternative Site...............................................................................................7-12
7.4 - Environmentally Superior Alternative.............................................................7-13
Section 8: Other CEQA Considerations...........................................................................8-1
8.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................8-1
8.2 - Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................8-2
8.3 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resource...................................8-3
Table of Contents West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
iv Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec00-TOC.doc
Section 9: Organizations and Persons Consulted..........................................................9-1
9.1 - Public Agencies...............................................................................................9-1
9.2 - Private Organizations.......................................................................................9-1
Section 10: Report Preparation Personnel....................................................................10-1
Section 11: References...................................................................................................11-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Responses
Appendix B: Farmland Conversion Study
Appendix C: Air Quality Assessment
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
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Potentially Significant Environmental Issues......................................................1-6
Table 2-1: Executive Summary............................................................................................2-3
Table 3-1: Statistical Summary............................................................................................3-7
Table 3-2: West Ming Specific Plan General Plan Land Use Designation Acreages.........3-11
Table 3-3: West Ming Specific Plan Zoning District Acreages...........................................3-12
Table 3-4: Dwelling Unit Range.........................................................................................3-15
Table 3-5: West Ming Specific Plan Maximum Building Height.........................................3-15
Table 5.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards¹.....................................5.2-13
Table 5.2-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin - District Portion Attainment Status..............5.2-14
Table 5.2-3: Background Ambient Air Quality for Ozone................................................5.2-15
Table 5.2-4: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM10..........................................5.2-15
Table 5.2-5: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM2.5.........................................5.2-16
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates v
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec00-TOC.doc
Table 5.2-6: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for CO.............................................5.2-16
Table 5.2-7: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for NOx............................................5.2-16
Table 5.2-8: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for SOx............................................5.2-17
Table 5.2-9: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for Lead..........................................5.2-17
Table 5.2-10: Emissions from Existing Project Site Agricultural Operations...................5.2-18
Table 5.2-11: Standards Utilized for General Thresholds of Significance.......................5.2-21
Table 5.2-12: Models used in Impact Analysis................................................................5.2-23
Table 5.2-13: Total Project Emissions............................................................................5.2-31
Table 5.2-14: Project Criteria Pollutant Impact Model Results for Intermediate
Construction Year and Buildout Year.......................................................5.2-33
Table 5.2-15: Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline.............5.2-38
Table 5.2-16: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations..................5.2-46
Table 5.2-17: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO)...........................................5.2-46
Table 5.2-18: Operational Year Odor Impacts................................................................5.2-50
Table 5.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring on the
Project Site................................................................................................5.3-3
Table 5.3-2: Consistency of the West Ming Specific Plan with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan.........................................................................5.3-13
Table 5.5-1: Active Faults Within the Project Area............................................................5.5-2
Table 5.8-1: Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Hourly Noise Level
Standards..................................................................................................5.8-2
Table 5.8-2: Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels............................................................5.8-4
Table 5.8-3: 2015 and 2030 Traffic Noise Levels on the Project Site.............................5.8-11
Table 5.8-4: 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels................................................5.8-16
Table 5.8-5: Construction Equipment Noise...................................................................5.8-25
Table 5.9-1: Student Generation Rates............................................................................5.9-6
Table 5.11-1: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections.....................5.11-8
Table 5.11-2: LOS Criteria for Roadway Segments........................................................5.11-9
Table 5.11-3: Project Trip Generation...........................................................................5.11-11
Table 5.12-1: Estimated Solid Waste Generation.........................................................5.12-10
Table 5.13-1: Kern County and City of Bakersfield Population Projections....................5.13-2
Table 5.13-2: Kern County and City of Bakersfield Housing Projections........................5.13-2
Table 6-1: Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis.................................................6-10
Table 6-2: Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis.................................................6-16
Table of Contents West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
vi Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec00-TOC.doc
LIST OF EXIBITS
Exhibit 3-1: Regional Location Map.....................................................................................3-3
Exhibit 3-2: Vicinity Location Map........................................................................................3-5
Exhibit 3-3: West Ming Specific Plan General Plan Land Use Designations.......................3-9
Exhibit 3-4: Zoning Districts...............................................................................................3-13
Exhibit 3-5: Annexation Area.............................................................................................3-17
Exhibit 3-6: Circulation Plan...............................................................................................3-19
Exhibit 3-7: Trails Plan.......................................................................................................3-21
Exhibit 3-8: Utility Concept Plan - Water............................................................................3-23
Exhibit 3-9: Utility Concept Plan - Sewer...........................................................................3-25
Exhibit 3-10: Storm Drain Plan...........................................................................................3-29
Exhibit 3-11: Public Open Space Plan...............................................................................3-31
Exhibit 3-12: Private Open Space Plan..............................................................................3-33
Exhibit 3-13: Project Phasing.............................................................................................3-35
Exhibit 5.7-1: Existing Flood Map.....................................................................................5.7-3
Exhibit 5.7-2: Future Flood Map......................................................................................5.7-13
Exhibit 5.11-1: Traffic Study Area...................................................................................5.11-3
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Purpose of the EIR
1.1.1 - Authority and Purpose
The City of Bakersfield (City), as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., prepared this draft environmental impact
report (Draft EIR) to identify and evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with
implementation of the annexation, general plan amendments, specific plan, zone changes,
development agreement, Federal Emergency Management Agency letter of map revisions, and related
approvals proposed for the West Ming Project. This document is a Program EIR and has been
prepared in conformance with CEQA; the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as
adopted by the City of Bakersfield. The proposed project will result in the establishment of a new
community that will be developed in accordance with the provisions and regulations outlined in the
West Ming Project. The Specific Plan includes a maximum of 7,450 residential units, 478,880 square
feet of commercial, 331,200 square feet of town center commercial and mixed use, 1,135,000 square
feet of special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public
transportation, office and other uses as permitted by the Specific Plan).
CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences
of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on them. The purpose
of this Draft EIR is to inform agencies and the public of significant environmental effects associated
with the proposed project, describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the project, and propose
mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the project’s significant effects.
In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an
informational document that will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of
the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant
effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
The proposed project requires discretionary approvals from the City as well as other public agencies
as outlined in Section 3.6; therefore, it is subject to the requirements of CEQA.
This Draft EIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and
alternatives in a comprehensive single environmental document, in accordance with the provisions set
forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. It will be used to address potentially significant
environmental issues and to recommend adequate and feasible mitigation measures, where possible,
that could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. To that end, the Draft EIR will
serve as the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation
monitoring or reporting program for the proposed project.
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
1-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
This EIR will also be used to determine whether subsequent environmental documentation will be
required. Subsequent actions on the project site may include, but are not limited to, the consideration
of parcel maps, vesting tentative and final tract maps, conditional use permits, oil well abandonment
permits, oil drilling permits, remedial operations of oil well permits, etc. The lead agency for a
specific action can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation
unless as otherwise required by Public Resources Code Section 21166 (subsequent and supplemental
EIRs), and the state CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 (subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations),
15163 (Supplement to an EIR), and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration).
1.1.2 - Program EIR
The City has elected to prepare a program environmental impact report (Program EIR) for the
proposed project. The West Ming Project is considered a Program because it includes a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project. Codified in Section 15168, et seq., of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the series of actions can be related either:
• Geographically;
• A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;
• In connection with 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 Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can:
• Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would
be practical in an EIR on an individual action;
• Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis;
• Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations;
• Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation
measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or
cumulative impacts; and
• Allow reduction in paperwork.
• Subsequent activities in the Program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to
determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared according to the
following criteria.
• If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial
Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
• If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the
scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would
be required.
• An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the
Program EIR into subsequent actions in the Program.
• Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a
written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to
determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program
EIR.
• A Program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the
effects of the Program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and
detailed analysis of the Program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the
scope of the project described in the Program EIR, and no further environmental documents
would be required.
1.1.3 - Residential Projects Pursuant to Specific Plan
If the City finds that a residential project is undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to the West
Ming Specific Plan and meets the requirements of Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no
EIR or negative declaration need be prepared for that project.
1.1.4 - Lead Agency
Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines the Lead Agency as “… the public agency,
which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Criteria considered in
identifying the Lead Agency include whether the agency: 1) has the greatest responsibility for
supervising or approving the project as a whole; 2) is an agency with the general governmental
powers; and 3) will act first on the project in question (State CEQA Guidelines §15051). As
previously stated, the Lead Agency for this Draft EIR is the City. In this capacity, the City is
responsible for review of the environmental documentation through certification of a Final EIR, and
subsequent implementation of the proposed project. This Draft EIR reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City as required by the State CEQA Guidelines.
In accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency would be required
to make findings for each significant environmental impact of the project. If a lead agency approves
the project, and it has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant
unavoidable impacts), the lead agency shall adopt a written statement specifying the reasons for
approving the project, based on the final CEQA document and any other information in the public
record for the project. This is termed, per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. “a statement
of overriding considerations.”
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
1-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
1.1.5 - Responsible Agencies
Section 15381 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines the Responsible Agency as “a public agency
which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has
prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration.” A Responsible Agency includes all public agencies other
than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. The known
Responsible Agencies associated with the West Ming Project include County of Kern Local Agency
Formation Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, California Department of
Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, and Panama-Buena Vista Union
School District.
1.2 - Scope of the EIR
1.2.1 - Scope and Content of This EIR
This DEIR has been prepared primarily by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) under direct
contract to the City, and has been independently reviewed by City staff. Technical studies have been
prepared by other consultants; however, reviewed for CEQA adequacy by MBA. Section 10 of this
DEIR includes a Report Preparation Personnel list.
Scope
The scope of the DEIR includes issues identified by the City of Bakersfield during the preparation of
the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project, and issues raised by
agencies and the general public in response to the IS/NOP, as described below. More specifically, the
following issues have been determined to be potentially significant and are therefore evaluated in this
DEIR. The scope of this DEIR is based on issues identified by the City during the preparation of the
West Ming Project IS/NOP, written comments received from public agencies and the general public
in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and a public scoping meeting.
This DEIR has been prepared as a Program EIR with the intent to be used for future environmental
analysis of subsequent activities. In order to focus the preparation of this DEIR, the City prepared an
Initial Study. Section 15063(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the following purposes
for preparing an Initial Study when the requirement to prepare an EIR has been previously
established:
• Focus the EIR on the effects determined to be significant;
• Identify the effects determined not to be significant;
• Explain the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant;
and
• Identify whether a Program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for
analysis of the project’s environmental effects.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
The City circulated a NOP for public review and comment from May 11, 2005 to June 10, 2005,
which included the Initial Study. Written comments were received from the following public
agencies and individuals. Copies of these letters are contained in Appendix A:
• Arthur D. Unger
• Berrenda Mesa Water District
• City of Bakersfield, Water Resources Department
• Kern County Water Agency
• Kern County Waste Management Department
• North of the River Recreation and Park District
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• State of California, Department of Conservation
• State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
• State of California, Public Utilities Commission
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Environmental Issues Determined To Be Not Significant
The environmental issues that are determined not to be significantly affected by the implementation
of the West Ming Project and do not require further analysis in this DEIR are briefly described here.
For the complete discussion of each environmental issue, refer to the Initial Study contained in
Appendix A.
Aesthetics
The project site and surrounding environment, particularly south and east of the project site, contains
visual resource elements that may be considered by some individuals as aesthetically unappealing.
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 Project design
guidelines. The project site does not contain any scenic vistas nor is the site located within or
adjacent to a State-designated scenic highway.
Although the recreational lake included in the West Ming Project would allow for water-related
recreational activities and provide views of the lake from select buildings, they would also reflect
sunlight and artificial lighting during the daytime and nighttime. Although light would be reflected
from the surface of the recreational lake, it is not anticipated to result in substantial glare. Moreover,
the recreational lake is deemed to be a beneficial amenity of the proposed project. Development of
the project site will introduce new sources of light and glare through the construction of new homes
and commercial uses, which are expected to be in the form of street lights and other low-level
lighting, such as security lighting, signage, and landscape lighting. The proposed development would
be required to comply with the mandatory obligations related to lighting and glare contained in the
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
1-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
City’s municipal code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts related to visual resources, light, and glare.
Mineral Resources
The project site contains active, producing oil wells and wells that are no longer active. A Natural
Resources Impact Report was prepared for the proposed project, which determined that depending on
market pricing for oil, the estimated remaining supply would be exhausted in approximately 10 years
(see Appendix H). The proposed project includes a Special Use District that would allow continued
oil well production. 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 uses. According to the West Ming Specific
Plan Compatibility & Safety Assessment prepared by Claude D. Fiddler in December 2004 (see
Appendix N), the implementation of the proposed project would not diminish the oil recovery from
the reservoirs in the project development area. Although the project would not affect the ability to
recover oil resources, the operation of the oil facilities could affect future land uses on the project site.
To ensure compatibility between the future land uses on the project site and the existing and future oil
production activities on the project site, the following mitigation measure is recommended.
• Prior to approval of a tentative tract/parcel map, the project applicant shall submit a petroleum
integration plan that shows how all existing petroleum-related facilities will be protected and
integrated into the proposed development and provides documentation of compliance with
Section 17.46.010 and Section 15.66 of the City Municipal Code.
With the approval of the above mitigation measure, potential compatibility impacts associated with
onsite oil production activities would be less than significant.
Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
Based on the foregoing and West Ming Project Initial Study, the environmental issues that could
result in potentially significant impacts to the environment that are described and evaluated in the
DEIR are listed in Table 1-1 along with the corresponding sections of the DEIR in which they are
discussed.
Table 1-1: Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
Environmental Issue DEIR Document Section
Agriculture Resources Section 5.1
Air Quality Section 5.2
Biological Resources Section 5.3
Cultural Resources Section 5.4
Geology and Soils Section 5.5
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
Table 1-1 (Cont.): Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
Environmental Issue DEIR Document Section
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 5.6
Hydrology and Water Quality Section 5.7
Noise Section 5.8
Public Services Section 5.9
Recreation Section 5.10
Transportation and Traffic Section 5.11
Utilities and Service Systems Section 5.12
Population and Housing Section 5.13
Organization of the Document
In addition to this introduction section, the remainder of the DEIR is organized into the following
main sections:
Section 2: Executive Summary
This section includes a summary of the West Ming Project and summary of the alternatives to the
proposed project addressed in the DEIR. Also included are brief descriptions of the areas of
controversy and issues to be resolved, and a table that summarizes the project and cumulative
impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation.
Section 3: Project Description
This section includes a detailed description of the proposed West Ming Project, including its location,
background, site development constraints, and technical, economic, and environmental
characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives and intended uses of the DEIR, which includes
the approvals that are required for the West Ming Project is also provided.
Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting
This section includes an overview of the general setting of the environment in the vicinity of the
project site.
Section 5: Project Impacts
The analysis of each environmental issue category, previously identified in Table 1-1, is organized
into the following sub-sections: Introduction; Environmental Setting; Thresholds of Significance; and
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Each of these is briefly explained below.
• Introduction - identifies the primary documents used in the preparation of the section and any
other pertinent information.
• Environmental Setting - identifies and describes the physical environmental conditions that
exist at the time of publication of the NOP, and which constitute the baseline physical
conditions that assist in determining whether an impact is significant.
Introduction West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
1-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
• Thresholds of Significance - identifies applicable thresholds from Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines or other published documentation that assists in a determination of whether
an impact is significant. Unless specifically identified within each environmental issue section
of this document, the thresholds of significance used are those contained in Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
• Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures - describes environmental changes to the existing
physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented, and evaluate these
changes with respect to the thresholds of significance. If impacts are found to be significant,
mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts. The level of significance after
mitigation is determined after mitigation measures are implemented.
Section 6: Cumulative Impacts
This section describes the potential changes in environmental conditions that result from the
incremental impact of the proposed project added to other closely related past, present, and probable
future projects or considered as part of projections contained in an adopted related planning document
to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
Section 7: Other CEQA Considerations
This section identifies significant unavoidable impacts associated with the project as well as growth-
inducing impacts and irreversible and irretrievable commitment to resources.
Section 8: Alternatives to the Proposed Project
This section compares the impacts of the proposed West Ming Project with two alternatives, the
mandated No Project Alternative and Reduced Development Alternative. The environmentally
superior alternative is identified.
Section 9: Organizations and Persons Consulted
This section lists the various organizations and persons consulted during the preparation of the DEIR.
Section 10: Report Preparation Personnel
This section lists the various individuals who contributed to the preparation of the DEIR.
Section 11: References
This section lists the references cited in the body of the DEIR.
1.3 - Lead Agency and Contact Persons
The City is the Lead Agency in the review and certification of the DEIR. The project applicant is
Castle & Cooke California, Inc. Michael Brandman Associates is the environmental consultant under
contract to the City for the preparation of this Draft EIR and the Final EIR.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec01-00_Introduction.doc
Preparers of this Draft EIR are identified in Section 10 of this document. Key contact persons are:
Lead Agency..........................City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: 661.326.3733
Project Applicant...................Castle & Cooke California, Inc.
Scott Blunck, Land Development
10000 Stockdale Highway, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Environmental Consultant.....Michael Brandman Associates
Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Project Director
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714.508.4100
1.4 - Review of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR has been distributed to public agencies, other affected agencies, adjacent cities and
counties, members of the public, and any parties who have submitted a written request for a copy of
the Draft EIR. The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by
the State CEQA Guidelines. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR, which includes
the technical appendices, is available for public review at the City Planning Department at the address
shown below during regular business hours.
Written comments on the Draft EIR must be addressed to:
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: 661.326.3733
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Executive Summary
Michael Brandman Associates 2-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 - Proposed Project
The project site is located in and adjacent to the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield. It
encompasses approximately 2,182 acres generally located west of Buena Vista Road, north of
Pacheco Road, south of Ming Avenue, and east of the proposed West Beltway alignment.
Approximately 640 acres of the project site are located within the Bakersfield city limits and the
remainder of the project site (1,542 acres) is located in unincorporated Kern County.
The proposed project includes the development of a new community with residential, commercial,
recreational, schools, and light industrial uses. The project includes a maximum of 7,450 residential
units, 478,880 square feet of commercial (including office, service, and retail), 331,200 square feet of
town center commercial and mixed use (including office, service, and retail), 1,135,000 square feet of
special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public
transportation, office, and other uses permitted by the Specific Plan.). The proposed schools will be
located within the residential neighborhoods of the project site.
The proposed project includes a phasing plan that will be implemented over a 20-year time frame.
The development will be phased so that adequate utilities are provided for each area of development.
The existing agriculture and oil production activities will continue and be located adjacent to new
developed areas of the Specific Plan until each area of the project site is developed.
The project will require approval of annexation, General Plan amendments, specific plan, zone
changes, development agreement, and Federal Emergency Management Agency conditional and final
letters of map revisions. In addition to these approvals, the project will require approval of parcel
maps, tentative and final tract maps, conditional use permits, permits related to oil wells, and
approvals for the proposed elementary and middle schools.
2.2 - Areas of Controversy/Issues To Be Resolved
The potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved through the EIR process are derived from
the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (Appendix A) and responses thereto. These areas include loss
of agricultural land, increase in air emissions, increase in traffic, and potential effects on the existing
oil production facilities.
2.3 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects
As described in Section 5, Project Impacts, and Section 6, Cumulative Impacts, the proposed project
will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land, noise impacts, and traffic
impacts. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the project’s impacts to agricultural
land and the increases in offsite noise levels along roadway segments. Improvements were
Executive Summary West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
2-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
recommended to reduce project impacts on roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site;
however, the impact from the increases in project traffic would remain significant and unavoidable
after implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
2.4 - Summary of Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, “states that EIR shall include a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In addition, in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e), indicates that if other future uses of the land are predictable, such uses should be
discussed as possible no-project conditions and the project should be compared to them. Section 7,
Alternatives, of this EIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail to
allow the decision-maker to decide whether or not an alternative should be adopted in lieu of the
proposed project. The alternatives evaluated in the following EIR include the following:
• No Project/No Development Alternative
• Reduced Intensity Alternative
• Alternative Site
2.5 - Mitigation and Monitoring Program
CEQA requires public agencies to set up monitoring report programs for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or
avoid significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. A mitigation monitoring program,
incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of
certification of the EIR.
2.6 - Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 summarizes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, the recommended
mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. Impacts that are noted in the
summary as “significant” after mitigation will require the adoption of a statement of overriding
considerations, if the project is approved as proposed (CEQA Section 15903). Impacts of the project
are classified as (1) NI, no impact; (2) LTS, less than significant impact (adverse effects that are not
substantial according to CEQA); or (3) S, significant, (substantial adverse changes in the
environment). Mitigation measures are listed, where feasible, for each impact.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-3
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Table 2-1: Executive Summary
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Section 5.1 - Agriculture Impact 5.1.A: The project would convert Prime
Farmland as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use.
(S)
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
Impact 5.1.B: The project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. (S)
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
Impact 5.1.C:
The project would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.1.D: The project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
SECTION 5.2 - Air Quality Impact 5.2.A: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. (LTS)
No Mitigation Measures are required. Less than significant
Impact 5.2.B: The construction of the project may
potentially violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (S)
5.2.B.1 -
Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District that all construction activities and operations will comply with local zoning codes, and District Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081) and implementation of all other control measures (BACMs) as stated in GAMAQI.
Less than significant
Impact 5.2.C: The operation of the project may
potentially violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (S)
5.2.C.1 - Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall
comply with District Regulation II, specifically, the project will be subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR)
Rule. As a part of the District
Less than significant
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-4
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
permitting process, any emissions exceeding the District’s offsetting thresholds would have to be offset back to the thresholds on a stationary source by stationary source basis. Accordingly, these NSR Offsets will reduce ROG net emissions by 22.92 tons per year (from 90.97 tons per year to 68.05 tons per year) and reduce NO
X net emissions by 14.00 tons per year (from 33.20 tons per year to 19.20 tons per year). 5.2.C.2 - Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall
comply in all respects with developer’s obligations under that certain Air Quality Mitigation Agreement approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and entered into by and between the District and developer, a copy of which is contained within the appendices of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. Developer’s
compliance with the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will result in a reduction of ROG, NOX
, and PM
10 net emissions to zero or in quantities sufficient to fully mitigate the project’s air quality impacts to the extent
that the development of the project will result in no net increase in criteria pollutant emissions over the criteria pollutant emissions which would otherwise exist without the development of the project, all as verified by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Accordingly, the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will further reduce ROG net emissions by 68.05 tons per year (from 68.05 tons per year to 0 tons per year), will further reduce NOX
net emissions by 19.20 tons per year (from 19.20 tons per year to 0 tons per year), and will reduce PM10 net emissions by 38.79 tons per year (from 38.79 tons per year to 0 tons per year). It should be restated that approximately 39.42 tons per year of ROG, 28.22 tons per year of NO
x, and 43.28 tons per year of PM10
,from onsite agricultural
emissions will be subtracted from the proposed project emissions since they will phased out as the project is developed.
Impact 5.2.D: The project may potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.2.E: The project may potentially create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-5
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Section 5.3 - Biological Resources Impact 5.3.A: The proposed project has a potential to result in 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. (LTS)
5.3.A.1 - Prior to grading plan approval, the project applicant shall pay a
Habitat Mitigation Fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and MBHCP. 5.3.A.2 - Prior to grading plan approval on the approximately 2,182-acre site, the project proponent shall comply with all appropriate terms and conditions of the MBHCP to the City regarding San Joaquin kit fox. The MBHCP requires certain take avoidance measures for the San Joaquin kit fox. MBHCP guidelines regarding tracking and excavation shall be followed to prevent entrapment of kit fox in dens. Specific measures during the construction phase of the project shall be implemented and include the following: •
A pre-construction survey shall be conducted prior to site grading to search for active kit fox dens. The survey shall be conducted not more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities in areas subject to development to determine the necessity of den excavation.
•
Monitoring and excavation of each known San Joaquin kit fox den which cannot be avoided by construction activities.
•
Notification of wildlife agencies of relocation opportunity prior to ground disturbance in areas of known kit fox dens.
•
Excavations shall either be constructed with escape ramps or covered to prevent kit fox entrapment. All tr
enches or steep-walled excavations greater than three feet deep shall in
clude escape ramps to allow wildlife to escape. Each excavation shall contain at least one ramp, with long trenches containing at least one ramp every 0.25 mile. Slope of ramps
shall be no steeper than 1:1.
•
All pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of kit fox. If they are not capped or otherwise covered, they w
ill be inspected prior to burial or
closure to ensure no kit foxes, or other protected species, become
entrapped.
•
All employees, contractors, or other persons involved in the construction of the project shall attend a “tailgate” session informing them of the
biological resource protection measures that will be implemented for the
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-6
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
project. The orientation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include information regarding the life history of the protected
species, reasons for special-statu
s, a summary of applicable environmental law, and measures intended to reduce impacts. A report summarizing the date, time, and topics of the “tailgate” session, list of attendees and identification of qualified biologist conducting session shall be submitted to the Planning Director within 10 days of the “tailgate” session.
•
All food, garbage, and plastic shall be disposed of in closed containers and regularly removed from the site to minimize attracting kit fox or other animals. 5.3.A.3 - Since kit foxes are known to exist in the general area, it is
recommended that all construction personnel involved in initial ground disturbance receive sensitive species instruction prior to initial ground phases of construction. Any evidence, such as dens, should be avoided and reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution. 5.3.A.4 - Prior to grading plan approval for the approximate 2,182-acre site, the project applicant shall comply with the following raptor nest mitigation: •
If site grading is proposed during the avian nesting season (February to September), a focused survey for avian nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to grading activities in order to identify active nests in areas potentially impacted by project implementation.
•
If construction is proposed to take place during the nesting season (February to September), no construc
tion activity shall take place within
500 feet of an active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified biologist). Habitat containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (October to January).
•
Preconstruction surveys shall include a survey for burrowing owl. If
active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside of breeding season (September 1 through January 31), passive and/or active relocation efforts may be undertaken if approved by CDFG and USFWS. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during breeding season (February 1
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-7
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
through August 31), no disturbance to these burrows shall occur in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Impact 5.3.B:
The proposed project would not result
in 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. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.3.C:
The proposed project would not result in 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. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.3.D:
The proposed project would not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife speci
es or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.3.E:
The proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. However, the project applicant will
be required to comply with the existing controlled leash law for areas that are within the Kern River Plan Element which includes those areas of the Specific Plan located north of the Kern River Canal. In addition, the
project applicant will be required to pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee as identified in mitigation measure 5.3.A.1.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.3.F: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. However, the project applicant will be required to pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee as well as implement pre-construction measures as outlined in mitigation measures 5.3.A.1, 5.3.A.2, 5.3.A.3, and 5.3.A.4.
No impact.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-8
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Section 5.4 - Cultural Resources Impact 5.4.A: The project may potentially cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource. (S)
5.4.A.1 - Prior to grading plan approval within the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall attempt to find evidence of the previously recorded sites. If the qualified archaeologist finds eviden
ce of the previous recorded sites, the resources shall be evaluated for significance and integrity using the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for unique cultural resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If the resources are
found to be sign
ificant, specific
measures shall be recommended. In addition, the grading plans shall state that archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall take place dur
ing construction excavation activities at the locations of the 10 cultural sites and 26 isolates that were previously recorded on the site within the project site. The archaeologist shall prepare a summary report of the monitoring activities and findings. The report shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department and other appropriate agencies within 10 days of completion of monitoring. If the qualified archaeologist does not find evidence of the previous recorded sites, the grading plans shall
state that archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall take place during construction excavation activities at the locations of the 10 cultural sites and 26 isolates that were previously recorded on the site within the project site. The archaeologist shall prepare a summary report
of the monitoring activities and findings. The report shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department and other appropriate agencies within 10 days of completion of monitoring. Following are the specific measures. •
The archaeological monitor shall attend a pre-grade meeting to explain the role of the monitor during grading activities.
•
If cultural resources are detected within the project area, the cultural
resources must be recorded usi
ng appropriate State record forms
(DPR523 series) and following guidelines in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The archaeologist will then submit two (2) copies of the
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-9
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
completed DPR523 forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for the assignment of trinomials.
•
If cultural resources are detected within the survey areas, they must be evaluated for significance and integrity using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for unique cultural resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
•
If cultural resources are found within
the project footprint, appropriate
mitigation measures and recommended conditions of approval must be developed to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 guidelines.
•
A technical resources management report is required. The report must document the inventory, evaluation, conclusions and mitigation recommendations. Submit two copies of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for permanent archiving.
Impact 5.4.B:
The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.4.C:
The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. (S)
5.4.C.1 - Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that paleontological monitoring shall take place during construction excavation activities that result in excavations of six feet below ground surface or greater within the project site. Following are the specific measures.
•
Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
•
Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
•
Prepare, identify, and curate all r
ecovered fossils for documentation in
the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository.
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-10
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Submit a summary report to the City of Bakersfield. Transfer collected specimens with copy of report to the repository.
Impact 5.4.D:
The proposed project could result in the disturbance of human remains (S)
5.4.D.1 - Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that if human remains are encountered on the project site, the Kern County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all
work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies.
Less than significant.
Section 5.5 - Geology and Soils Impact 5.5.A: The proposed project could expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving: 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; Strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; and landslides. (LTS)
5.5.A.1 - Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map
application or other development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall conduct additional liquefaction studies in the northwestern corner of the project site (i.e., in the vicinity of the existing recharge ponds) during recharge periods to fully evaluate liquefaction impacts on specific development projects in this area of the site. Based on the findings of these studies, site specific designs shall be incorporated in th
e grading and building plans to reduce
onsite liquefaction impacts. The scope of the liquefaction studies, findings, and recommendations to reduce liquefaction shall be reviewed and require approval by the City of Bakersfield Public Works and Building Departments prior to grading and building plan approvals.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.B: The proposed project could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (S)
5.5.B.1 -
Prior to grading plan approval, an erosion control plan for
construction activities that describe the best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce the potential for soil erosion and loss of top soil. The erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department for review and approval. The BMPs could include soil stabilizers and silt fencing as well as other measures.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.C:
The proposed project is not 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. (LTS)
No measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-11
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.5.D: The proposed project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would not creating substantial risks to life or property. (LTS)
No measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.E: The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems;
therefore, the proposed proj
ect would not be affected
by the soil capability of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (NI)
No measures are required. No impacts.
Section 5.6 - Hazardous and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.6.A: The proposed project could result in
exposing residents, visitors and construction personnel to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. (LTS)
No measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.B: The proposed residential uses could result in exposing onsite and offsite residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.C:
The proposed commercial and
industrial uses could result in exposing residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.D:
The proposed recreational lake could result in exposing residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transp
ort, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required.
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-12
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.6.E: Pesticide use from agricultural activities onsite and offsite could result in exposing residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.(LTS)
No mitigation measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.F: Oil and gas activities will continue on
portions of the project site and could result in exposing residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine
transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials. (S)
5.6.F.1 -
Prior to site plan approval, applicant shall provide evidence that future active oil wells and associated equipment will meet the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations and public health and safety regulations, or provide other assurances that residents and visitors will not be exposed to health hazards from the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, prior to development of affected portions of the project. 5.6.F.2 - Prior to grading plan approval where there is an existing drilling and/or production operations of exploration oil wells and including disposal wells, the project applicant shall have the locations surveyed, located, and marked by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. A map shall be furnished to the Office of Environmental Services showing how all existing petroleum related facilities will be protected and integrated into the proposed
development. The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources and the City of Bakersfield development standards shall be met. 5.6.F.3 -
Prior to grading plan approval, all drilling and production
activities shall be subject to all fire and safety regulations as required by the Bakersfield City Fire Department. The City Code 15.66.040 and 15.66.080 Well Site Development Standards Setback states that no
petroleum well shall be drilled nor shall any storage tank and other production related structures be located within: •
75 Feet of the right-of way of any dedicated public street, highway, railroad or private street, or adopted specific plan line of any street or
highway;
•
No streets may be constructed within 75 feet of any oil well unless it has been properly abandoned;
•
100 Feet of any building including dwellings, except buildings incidental to the operation of the well;
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-13
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors which include residential area, schools, daycare centers, hospital, convalescent homes and other large immobile
populations;
•
300 Feet of any public assembly;
•
25 Feet of a storage tank or boilers, fired heaters, open flame devices or other sources of ignition;
•
A solid masonry wall 8 feet high shall encompass the entire well site. Two gates, as nearly opposite as possible to each other shall be installed;
•
Pipelines utilized for all petroleum related operations shall be buried a minimum of 3 feet below grade. 5.6.F.4 -
The Pipeline Development Policy of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department is as follows: •
No habitable portion of a structure may be built within 50 Feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches
of cover;
•
No structure may be within 40 Feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, with 48 inches or more of cover;
•
No habitable portion of a structure may be built within 30 Feet of a crude oil pipeline operation at 20% of it’s design strength;
•
Prior to or concurrently with filing of a final map, a covenant shall be recorded on all lots of this tract, or
portion thereof, wh
ich are within 250 Feet of any gas transmission lines. Covenant shall acknowledge proximity of pipeline easement to said property and describe the name, type and dimension of the pipeline. Prior to recordation, the subdivider shall submit and obtain approval of covenant wording with the City Attorney, Office of Environmental Services and City Engineer.
Impact 5.6.G: Past oil and gas activities could create hazards to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (S)
5.6.G.1 - Prior t recordation of a final ma
p, any abandoned and idle wells within the grading envelope, shall have the surface area returned to its natural condition including but not limited to cleaning all oil, oil residues, drilling fluids, mud and other substances; leveling, grading or filling of sumps, ditches, and cellars including removal of all lining material to the satisfaction of the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-14
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.6.G.2 - Prior to recordation of a final map, all stained soils observed
within the grading envelope near the active water wells, idle water wells, and former water wells shall be shall be tested. If the soils are found to be hazardous, the soils shall be disposed
of in accordance with applicable
federal, state and local regulations. The applicant shall provide the City with evidence that any hazardous soils found onsite have been disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. 5.6.G.3 - Prior to recordation of a final map, a written verification shall be obtained from the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources that abandoned wells within the grading envelope were properly abandoned pursuant to their regulations. The written verification shall be submitted to the City. 5.6.G.4 - Prior to recordation of final map, any lot or parcel within the
grading envelope containing an abandoned well shall be encumbered with a deed restriction specifying the exact location of said well and prohibiting any construction within said 10 feet of an abandoned oil well. This is required by the City Municipal Code 15.66.080, Development encroachment in petroleum areas. 5.6.G.5 - Prior t recordation of a final map, information on the location of the pipelines and any information regarding safety concerns of these
pipelines shall be provided to the Bakersfield City Fire Department. Prior to grading activities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and/or any other company with pipelines running through the affected portions of the project site shall be notified of the construction activity within the corresponding easement. If any pipelines have any problems or if a pipeline is ruptured during development, the Bakersfield City Fire Department shall be notified. 5.6.G.6 - If during grading and construction, a pipeline accident occurs or potential unknown buried hazardous materials are found, and/or if unidentified materials are discovered in the testing of the soil, health and safety procedures shall be implemented. These procedures shall include, at a minimum, emergency medical, evacuation of the site and/or threatened
area, and notification action. Notification shall include but not be limited to the following agencies: The City of Bakersfield, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Bakersfield City and/or County Fire
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-15
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Department, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Evacuation and determination regarding the type of contamination encountered and best course of action would be determined by the ranking official and the required mediation measures shall be implemented. 5.6.G.7 - Prior to grading and building plan approvals, the grading and building plans shall state that all work will stop immediately if any unknown odorous or discolored soil or other possible hazardous materials arise during any part of the testing, grading, or construction on the project site.
Impact 5.6.H: Past agricultural activities could create hazards to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (S)
5.6.H.1 - Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map
application or other development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs first, soil testing shall be performed on the lands within the grading envelope to determine the level of residue for pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, and associated metals. If residue is found to be within acceptable amounts per the Kern County Environmental Health Department (KCEHD)
and Environmental Protection
Agency/Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) standards then grading and construction may begin. If the residue is found to be greater than the KCEHD and DTSC standards, all contaminated soils exceeding
the acceptable limits shall be remediat
ed and/or properly
disposed of per
KCEHD and DTSC requirements. An appropriate verification closure
letter from KCEHD and DTSC shall be obtained and submitted to the City of Bakersfield. Depending on the extent of contaminated soils, a verification closure letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board may also need to be submitted to the City of Bakersfield. Site remediation can occur by the use of on-site transportable thermal
treatment units or bio-remediation. The soil can also be excavated and shipped off-site to fixed incineration or bio-remediation facilities. The preliminary report shall be submitted
with said application. The report,
findings and recommendations shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department, prior to recordation of a final map or approval of a development plan.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.I: Past agricultural activities included the installation of irrigation piping. The piping could include asbestos containing materials that could create
5.6.I.1 -
Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map
application or other development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs first, the onsite subsurface irrigation piping
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-16
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
hazards to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (S)
within the grading envelope shall be tested to determine if Asbestos Containing Materials are present in the piping. If Asbestos Containing Materials are present, a plan shall be prepared to identify how the piping
will be removed and disposed of during grading activities. The applicant shall provide the City with evidence that any piping with Asbestos Containing Materials was disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. The preliminary report shall be submitted with said application. The report, findings and recommendations shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department, prior to recordation of a final map or approval of a development plan.
Impact 5.6.J: Onsite electrical transformers may have contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that could create hazards to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (S)
5.6.J.1 -
Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map
application or other development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs first, the soils beneath the existing pole-mounted transformers within the grading envelope shall be tested. If the soils are found to be hazardous, the soils shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The applicant shall provide the City with evidence that any hazardous soils found onsite have been disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. The preliminary report shall be submitted
with said application. The report,
findings and recommendations shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department, prior to recordation of a final map or approval of a development plan.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.K: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors. (S)
5.6.K.1 - Prior to grading plan approval, the handling and storage of hazardous and acutely hazardous materials shall be restricted to less than threshold planning quantities within 1,
000 feet of sensitive receptors which
include residential areas, schools, daycare centers, hospital, convalescent
homes and other large immobile populations. Sensitive receptors shall not be approved within zones of cancer risk identified by a health risk assessment of greater than 10 in 1,000,000.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.6.L: The proposed project is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-17
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.6.M: Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.6.N: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and the risk of accidents associated with population exposure to rail
operations. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Section 5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 5.7.A: The proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (S)
5.7.A.1 - Prior to grading plan approval, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that conforms to the State Water Resources Control Board NPDES permit in which the City of
Bakersfield is a co-permitee. The SWPPP shall specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction-related pollutants from reaching
storm water and all products of erosion from moving off-site. The SWPPP shall require approval by the State Water Resources Control Board and verification of approval provided to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.B: The proposed project could deplete
groundwater supplies or Interfere with groundwater recharge. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.C:
The proposed project could alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (LTS)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7.A.1 would reduce potential erosion and siltation impacts during construction activities.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.D:
The project would not create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; however, the project could provide additional sources of polluted runoff. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-18
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.7.E: The proposed project could degrade
water quality within the proposed onsite 5-acre lake. (S)
5.7.E.1 -
Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map
application or other development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval of a lake management plan for the proposed 5-acre lake.
The management plan shall provide specific methods to achieve a balanced aquatic ecosystem and an aesthetically pleasing lake with minimal insect infestations and uncontrolled algae blooms. The implementation of these methods shall result in water quality th
at can support the proposed uses of the lake. In addition, the management plan shall provide information on the personnel responsibilities of the long-term maintenance of the lake as well as the entity that will assume financial responsibility for the long-term management of the lake.
Less than significant with mitigation.
Impact 5.7.F:
The proposed project includes the
placement of housing and potentially other structures within an area currently designated as a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map. (S)
5.7.F.1 - Prior to recordation of a final map, or as otherwise determined by the Building Director, for on
site areas that are currently in 100-year flood
hazard area, the project applicant is required to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The LOMR shall identify
that the area of the proposed
development has been removed from the Zone A FEMA designation and submitted to the City of Bakersfield Building Department. Based on the Flood Study prepared by McIntosh and Associates in May 2005, the following improvements are required to remove the majority of the project site from the Zone A FEMA designation. Along the northern bound
ary of the site, the recently constructed levee shall be extended along Ming Avenue to intersect the proposed West Beltway. The recommended elevation at the intersection, based on the Revised Conditions Model, is 354.0 feet. From the northwestern boundary of the project site, the levee system shall continue to be constructed along the westerly boundary of the site along the proposed West Beltway alignment to 2,800 feet south of the Kern River Canal where it would blend into the natural ground elevation of approximately 349.0 feet. This portion of the levee may be a separate embankment or it may be incorporated into the proposed Beltway. In either case, the project applicant shall construct the levee in accordance
with the FIRM - 2 evaluation in the Flood Study prepared by McIntosh and Associates in May 2005. The evaluation established the water surface
Less than significant. Exhibit 5.7-2 illustrates the proposed flood zones on the project site after implementation of the required levee system and other improvements.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-19
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
elevation for the 100-
year frequency event. The required levee elevation to
meet the requirements of the FEMA is three-feet above the water surface
elevation. Due to the need for the Kern River Canal to extend through the future West Beltway alignment, the project applican
t shall raise the existing canal levee east of the proposed West Beltway alignment to elevation 351.6 feet and maintain that elevation until the levee blends into the existing embankment at elevation 351.6 feet. 5.7.F.2 -
Prior to recordation of a final map, or as otherwise determined by the Building Director, for the small area
of the southwestern portion of the
site that is currently within a 100-year flood hazard area, specific
improvements to remove this area from the Zone A FEMA designation are required to be submitted to FEMA for approval and then submitted to the City of Bakersfield Building Department.
Impact 5.7.G: The proposed project could expose
people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.H: The proposed project would not be subject to inundation caused by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. (LTS)
No measures are required. Less than significant.
Section 5.8 - Noise Impact 5.8.A Land uses within the project site would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the established City of Bakersfield noise thresholds. (S)
5.8.A.1 - Prior to tentative tract map approval,, a noise analysis shall be conducted to determine the setbacks and/or noise barr
iers that are required to comply with the City’s 65 dB CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standards along West Beltway, and White Lane. It is assumed that a 6-foot high soundwalls and/or setbacks on the project site along South Allen Road, Ming Avenue, and Buena Vista Road, would be adequate to reduce onsite noise levels to meet the City’s exterior and interior noise level standards. Furthermore, if interior noise standards are to be met with windows and doors closed, the specific proposed residential and/or school buildings that require mechanical ventilation shall be determined in a noise analysis. Specific lot design and site grading would need to be evaluated in
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-20
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
the noise analysis to determine the specific noise attenuation recommendations.
Impact 5.8.B: The proposed project would experience railroad noise levels from the adjacent San Joaquin Valley Railroad Buttonwillow Branch line. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required.
Impact 5.8.C: The proposed project could experience noise levels from future onsite commercial and light industrial activities. (S)
5.8.C.1 - Prior to site plan approval for commercial and industrial uses adjacent to residential uses, the project applicant shall conduct a noise study to determine the appropriate measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the City’s noise level performance standards. If commercial
and industrial uses are proposed adj
acent to residential uses, appropriate
measures would include setbacks, sound barrier, or a combination of both. 5.8.C.2 - Prior to City approval (conditional use permit, site plan, building permit, fire department permit, etc.) for the construction of an oil well adjacent to sensitive land uses, the project applicant shall conduct a noise study to determine the appropriate measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the City’s noise level performance standards. If sensitive land uses are proposed to adjacent existing oil wells, appropriate measures would include setbacks, sound barrier, or a combination of both. If oil wells are proposed adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, the engines associated with the oil wells could be converted to electric motors, sound barriers could be used, or setbacks could be established.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.8.D: The proposed project could experience noise levels from future onsite parks. (S)
5.8.D.1 - Prior to tentative tract map approval for the proposed active park and related park facilities adjacent to sensitive uses , the project applicant shall conduct a noise study to determin
e the appropriate measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the City’s noise level performance standards. If the proposed active parks or related park facilities are proposed adjacent to sensitive use areas, appropriate meas
ures would include setbacks, sound
barrier, or a combination of both.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.8.E: Construction activities associated with the proposed project may expose persons to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (S)
5.8.E.1 -
Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that construction activities associated with development of the project site would be required to be in conformance with Section 9.22.050 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code which limits construction to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends,
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-21
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
where construction occurs less than 1,000 feet from residences. 5.8.E.2 -
Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that
construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and maintained in accordance with the equipments’ factory specifications. During construction activities, the construction equipment muffler and maintenance records shall be onsite.
Impact 5.8.F: Land uses outside the project site would be exposed to noise levels that result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. (S)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.8.G:
Construction activities associated with the proposed project may result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.8.E.1 and 5.8.E.2. Less than significant.
Impact 5.8.H:
The proposed project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive aviation-related noise levels.
(LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Section 5.9 - Public Services Impact 5.9.A: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.9.B:
The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-22
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.9.C:
The project may potentially result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. (LTS)
5.9.C.1 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay Panama-Buena Vista Union School District and Kern High School District adopted
development impact school fees in accordance
with the statutory fees that are in effect at the time of issuing each permit.
Less than significant.
5.10 - Recreation Impact 5.10-A:
The proposed project will increase the onsite population by 19,020 persons; however, this increase would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, or result in the acceleration of the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.10-B:
The proposed project includes the
implementation of new recreational facilities on the project site to provide th
e project site’s future population of 19,020 persons with adequate recreational facilities. The construction of these recreational facilities would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Section 5.11 - Transportation Impact 5.11.A:
The proposed project will increase traffic substantially in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system including intersections and roadwa
ys. This increase will individually exceed the City’s level of service standard for intersections and roadways. (S)
5.11.A.1 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program as well as paying the propo
rtional share for local mitigation
improvements (those not covered by the RTIF). The intersection and roadway improvements that are required with the proposed project are as follows. The timing of these improvements are estimated below; however, shall be completed as the significance thresholds are reached.
Significant and unavoidable. After the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in the degradation of a level of service that began at or below LOS C without the project for the following facilities. Impacts to
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-23
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Year 2015 Intersection •
Allen Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one southbound through lane.
•
Allen Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
•
Ming Avenue and Project Entrance
No. 1 - Provide all-way-stop.
•
Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Install signal.
•
Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
•
South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard - Install signal.
•
South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 - Install signal.
•
White Lane and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
•
White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, one southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for westbound and northbound right turn lane.
•
White Lane and Windermere Street - Install signal.
•
White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct two eastbound though lanes and one northbound left turn lane.
•
South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
•
Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct one southbound through lane, one eastbound left turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Northbound Ramps West Beltway - Construct one eastbound through lane and one northbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and one southbound right turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
intersections would be less than significant after implementation of the required mitigation measures. •
Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine (LOS D)
•
White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps (LOS D)
•
Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS E)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-24
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Roadway Segment •
Stockdale Highway - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Add two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Dr
ive to South Project Entrance - Add
two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - South Project En
trance to Panama Lane - Add two
lanes.
Year 2030 Intersection •
Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
•
Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Construct one northbound right turn lane.
•
Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista
Road - Construct one eastbound
right turn lane.
•
Stockdale Highway and Old River - Provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No
. 1 - Install signal and construct one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one eastbound through lane,
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-25
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
one westbound through lane, one northbound through lane, one southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for northbound right turn lane and eastbound right turn lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road
- Construct one eastbound through
lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Gosford Road - Provide overlapping phase for eastbound right turn lane.
•
South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, two northbound left turn lanes, one southbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Campus Park Drive - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, and one southbound through lane.
•
White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one southbound through lane, one northbound through lanes, and provide overlapping phase for southbound right turn lane.
•
White Lane and Windermere Street - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one eastbound through lane, and one westbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound through lane.
•
South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct two eastbound left turn lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, and one northbound through lane.
•
Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct one westbound
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-26
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, and one southbound right turn lane.
•
South Allen Road and South Allen Entrance - Install signal.
•
Old River Road and Harris Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and one westbound left turn lane.
•
Buena Vista Road and South Proj
ect Entrance - Install signal.
•
South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
•
Gosford Road and Harris Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane and one southbound through lane.
Roadway Segment •
Stockdale Highway - Buena Vista Ro
ad to Old River Road - Add two
lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - Ming Avenue Project Entrance to South Allen Road - Add two lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Add two lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - Old River Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - New Stine Road to Old Stine Road - Add two lanes.
•
White Lane - West Beltway to Allen Road - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Provide for divided roadway.
•
Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add two lanes.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-27
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Provide for divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Provide for divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes and provide for divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Add two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Add two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes and provide for divided roadway.
•
Buena Vista Road - Campus Park
Drive to South Project Entrance -
Provide for divided roadway.
•
Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane - Provide for divided roadway.
•
Coffee Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes.
•
Gosford Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Add two lanes.
Impact 5.11.B:
The proposed project would not cause changes in air traffic patterns. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact.
Impact 5.11.C:
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact.
Impact 5.11.D:
The proposed project would not provide inadequate parking facilities. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact.
Impact 5.11.E:
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted polic
ies supporting alternative
transportation. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No Impact.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-28
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Section 5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems Impact 5.12.A:
The implementation of the proposed
project would increase the water demand on the project site; however, the project would not require the domestic water provider to obtain new or expanded entitlements and resources. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.B:
The project would require and result in the construction of new domestic water facilities or expansion of existing fac
ilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects. (S)
5.12.B.1 -
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite water facilities (i.e., water lines and water wells), the construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic, and air emissions on adjacent
land uses need to be adequately addressed in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines. Construction activities are required to occur at times specified in the Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the construction equipment. Operational noise levels associated with the water wells are required to be in conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance Standards. Traffic management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate safety during construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required to be reduced according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines and long term emissions associated with the water well pump would require an air permit from the District.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.C:
The implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of wastewater on the project site and would require new and expanded facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (S)
5.12.C.1 - Prior to the recordation of final maps, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department that the existing sewer trunk lines and the existing sewer lift station on White Lane are adequate to accommodate project flows. If the development of the individual tracts result in the exceedance of the capacities of the existing
facilities, the existing facilities shall be expanded or new facilities shall be constructed to adequately serve the proposed tract. 5.12.C.2 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay sewer connection fees to the City of Bakersfield Public Works
Department. The fees would be used to provide adequate sewer facilities to convey wastewater from the project site to Wastewater Treatment Plan No. 3 as well as contribute to the cost to increase the capacity of the
treatment plant.
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-29
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.12.C.3 - Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite and offsite sewer facilities, the construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic, and air emissions on adj
acent land uses need to be adequately
addressed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Construction
activities are required to occur at times specified in the Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the construction equipment. Operational noise levels associated with any sewer lift stations are required to be in conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance Standards. Traffic management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate safety during construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required to be reduced according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines and long term emissions associated with the lift station would require an air permit from the District.
Impact 5.12.D:
The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Impact 5.12.E:
The project could 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. (S)
5.12.E.1 -
Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite drainage facilities, the construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic,
and air emissions on adjacent land uses need to be adequately addressed in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines. Construction activities are
required to occur at times specified in the Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the construction equipment. Operational noise levels associated with the drainage pumps are required to be in conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance Standards. Traffic management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate safety during construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required to be reduced according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines and long term emissions associated with the drainage pumps would require an air permit from the District.
Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.F:
The project could be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-30
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 5.12.G:
The project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
Section 5.13 - Population and Housing Impact 5.13.A:
The proposed project will induce substantial population growth in the project area.
(LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 5.13.B:
The proposed project will not displace a substantial number of existing housing or people. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.3.1 - Agricultural Resources Impact 6.3.1.A:
The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to agricultural resources that is considered cumulatively considerable. (S)
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
6.3.2 - Air Quality Impact 6.3.2.A:
The project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.2.B:
The operation of the project and
cumulative development would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation resulting in emissions that violate air quality standards or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-31
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 6.3.2.C:
Cumulative development would not contribute substantial pollutant concentrations to exposed sensitive receptors. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.2.D:
Cumulative development would contribute to visibility impacts. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 required . Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.2.E:
The project may potentially
contribute substantial objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (LTS)
No additional mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
6.3.3 - Biological Resources Impact 6.3.3.A:
The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to biological resources that is considered cumulatively considerable. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.3.A.1 through 5.3.A.4 is required.
Less than significant.
6.3.4 - Cultural Resources Impact 6.3.4.A:
The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to cultural resources that is considered cumulatively considerable. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4.A,1, 5.4.C.1, and 5.4.D.1 is required.
Less than significant.
6.3.5 - Geology and Soils
Impact 6.3.5.A:
The proposed project will result in liquefaction and erosion impacts; however, the project’s contribution to these impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
6.3.6 - Hazards And Hazardous Materials Impact 6.3.6.A:
The proposed project will contribute to a cumulative increase in the use of hazardous materials in the project vicinity; however, the proposed project and cumulative projects would result in a less than significant cu
mulative impact related to hazardous
materials. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-32
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
6.3.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 6.3.7.A:
The proposed project will increase
drainage and degrade surface water quality; however, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measure 5.7.A.1 is required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.7.B:
The proposed project includes housing and potentially other structures within an area
currently designated as a 100-year flood hazard area. The project’s contribution to cumulative flooding impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measure 5.7.F.1 is required. Less than cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.
6.3.8 - Noise Impact 6.3.8.A:
The proposed project would
contribute to cumulative noise levels offsite that would expose land uses to nois
e levels that exceed the
established City of Bakersfield noise thresholds. (S)
No feasible measures are available. Significant and unavoidable. The project’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases would remain significant; however, the noise levels would be 65 dB CNEL or less which is the City’s exterior noise level standard.
6.3.9 - Public Services Impact 6.3.9.A:
The proposed project will increase the need for fire and police protection facilities; however,
the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
(S)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.9.B:
The proposed project will result in a substantial increase in students on the project site. Future developments in the project vicinity are also expected to substantially increase students. The
project’s contribution to cumulative school impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.
(S)
Implementation of 5.9.C.1 is required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-33
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
6.3.10 - Recreation Impact 6.3.10.A
The proposed project will increase
the residential population on the project site as well as provide adequate recreational facilities on the site. Future developments in the project vicinity are expected to substantially increase the demand for recreational facilities. Since the project includes adequate recreational facilitie
s, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on recreational facilities. (NI)
No mitigation measures are required. No impact.
6.3.11 - Transportation and Traffic 6.3.11.A: The proposed project will contribute to the cumulative increase in traffic and exceeding the City’s level of service standard for intersections and roadways. (S)
6.3.11.A.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program as well as paying the propo
rtional share for local mitigation
improvements (those not covered by the RTIF). The intersection and roadway improvements that are required with cumulative development in the years 2015 and 2030 are as follows: Year 2015 Intersections •
Rosedale Hwy & Allen Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
•
Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road - Construct one eastbound through lane and one westbound through lane.
•
Brimhall Road and Allen Road - Construct one southbound through lane
•
Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Install signal.
•
Calloway Drive and Westside Park
way Westbound Ramps - Install
signal.
Significant and unavoidable. After the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the cumulative development along with the proposed project would result in the degradation of a level of service that began at or below LOS C without the project. The following facilities would experience a significant and unavoidable impact. The level of service after mitigation is provided below. •
Ming Avenue from Ashe Road to New Stine Road (LOS B to LOS D)
•
Calloway Drive from Westside Parkway eastbound ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS A to E),
•
White Lane from Wible Road to Southbound 99 Ramps (LOS C to LOS D)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-34
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Calloway Drive and Westside Park
way Eastbound Ramps - Install
signal.
•
Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Install signal.
•
Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
•
Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Provide all-way-stop.
•
Ming Avenue and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and one northbound right turn lane - “Providing Full expansion per COB std Det T-4.”
•
Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane and one northbound right turn lane.
•
Ming Avenue and New Stine Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
•
Buena Vista Road and Chamber Blvd. - Install signal.
•
White Lane and South Allen Road - Install signal.
•
White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane and one southbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and one westbound left turn lane.
•
White Lane and Wilson Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
•
White Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound through lane.
•
Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
•
South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Install signal.
•
Panama Lane and West Beltway - Install signal and construct one westbound left turn lane, two southbound right turn lanes, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and West Beltway - Install signal and construct two eastbound left turn lanes, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one westbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Install signal and construct two eastbound left turn lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound
•
Calloway Drive from Westside Parkway eastbound ramps to Stockdale Highway ((LOS A to LOS E)
•
Coffee Road from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (LOS A to LOS E)
•
Coffee Road from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps (LOS A to LOS E)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-35
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
left turn lane, two southbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Windermere Street - Construct one eastbound through lane and one westbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Install signal and construct one eastbound left turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive - Construct one eastbound through lane and one westbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one northbound through lane and one southbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Reliance Drive - Install signal.
•
Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Install signal and construct one southbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound through lane, one southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for northbound right turn lane.
•
McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road - Provide all-way-stop.
Year 2015 Roadway Segments •
Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes.
•
Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway - Add two
lanes
•
Calloway Drive -Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes
•
Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add two lanes
•
Coffee Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-36
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Rosedale Highway - Calloway Drive to Coffee Road - Add two lanes.
•
Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue - Construct divided roadway.
•
Stockdale Highway - Nord Avenue to Wegis Road - Add two lanes.
•
Stockdale Highway - Wegis Road
to Heath Road - Add two lanes
•
Stockdale Highway - East of New Stine Road - Add two lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance - Construct two lane roadway
•
Ming Avenue - Ming Project Entrance to South Allen Road - Construct two lane roadway
•
Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Construct two lane roadway.
•
Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine Road - Add two lanes.
•
White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road - Construct two lane
roadway.
•
White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance - Construct two lane roadway.
•
White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road - Construct two lane roadway.
•
White Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Panama Lane -Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes, construct as divided roadway.
•
Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes
•
Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road -Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add two lanes.
•
South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Construct two lane roadway
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-37
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Construct two lane roadway
•
South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Construct two lane divided roadway
•
South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Construct two lane divided roadway
•
South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road - Construct four lane roadway
•
South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Construct two lane divided roadway
•
South Allen Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Construct two lane roadway. Year 2030 Intersections •
Buena Vista Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Install signal.
•
Hageman Road and Calloway Drive - Construct one northbound through lane and one southbound through lane.
•
Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and one westbound left turn lane.
•
Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, and provide overlapping phase for northbound right turn lane.
•
Rosedale Highway & Allen Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
•
Brimhall Road and Allen Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
•
Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue - Construct one southbound through lane.
•
Brimhall Road and Coffee Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-38
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one westbound left turn lane and one westbound right turn lane.
•
Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct two northbound left turn lanes, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
Calloway Drive and EB Westside Parkway - Channelize eastbound right turn lane; and construct one southbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
Truxtun Avenue and Coffee Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
•
Stockdale Highway and Allen Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
•
Stockdale Highway and Old River Road - Construct one westbound through lane “for Full expansion per COB Det T-4.
•
Stockdale Highway and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and one northbound right turn lane.
•
Stockdale Highway and New Stine Road - Construct eastbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane, one northbound turn lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane.
•
Ming Avenue and New Stine Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane and one westbound right turn lane.
•
Ming Avenue and Old Stine Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane.
•
White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Buena Vista - Construct one westbound right turn lane.
•
White Lane and Old River - Construct one northbound through lane and provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-39
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
White Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, and one northbound through lane.
•
White Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane and one northbound left turn lane.
•
White Lane and Wilson Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane.
•
White Lane and Stine Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and one southbound right turn lane.
•
White Lane and Wible Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for northbound right turn lane.
•
South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, two eastbound right turn lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for southbound right turn lane.
•
Harris Road and Old River Road - Construct one northbound through lane and one southbound through lane.
•
Harris Road and Gosford Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and West Beltway Southbound Ramps - Channelize southbound right turn lane; and construct one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound through lane, and one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and West Beltway Northbound Ramps - Construct one westbound right turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane and one westbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one westbound through lane, and provide overlapping phases for westbound right turn lane and southbound right lane.
•
Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - One eastbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one southbound through lane, two northbound
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-40
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
through lanes, two westbound through lanes, and provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive - Install signal.
•
Panama Lane and Reliance Drive - Construct two eastbound through lanes, one westbound through lane, and one westbound left turn lane.
•
Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, two eastbound through lanes, one westbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Golden Gate/Mountain Ridge Drive - Install signal.
•
Panama Lane and Stine Road - Construct one eastbound through lane.
•
Panama Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane.
•
McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road - Install signal and construct one eastbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, and one southbound right turn lane.
•
McCutchen Road and Old River Road - Install signal.
•
McCutchen Road and Gosford Road - Install signal.
Roadway Segments •
Buena Vista Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Add two
lanes.
•
Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Construct as divided roadway.
•
Calloway Drive - Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway - Add two lanes.
•
Calloway Drive - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes.
•
Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Calloway Drive -Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add two lanes, construct as divided roadway.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-41
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
Old River Road - South of Taft Avenue - Add two lanes.
•
Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes, construct as divided roadway.
•
Gosford Road - McCutchen Road to Taft Highway - Construct as divided roadway.
•
Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue - Add two lanes.
•
Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Construct as divided roadway.
•
Ming Avenue - Old Stine Road to Real Road - Add two lanes.
•
White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road - Construct as divided roadway.
•
White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance - Add two lanes
•
White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road - Add two lanes roadway.
•
White Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
•
White Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
•
White Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Panama Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
•
Panama Lane - Ashe Road to Stine Road - Add two lanes.
•
Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
•
Panama Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
•
Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct as divided roadway.
•
Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Construct as divided roadway.
•
Allen Road -Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway -Construct as divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Construct as divided roadway.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-42
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
•
South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco Road - Construct as divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road - Add two lanes, construct as divided roadway.
•
South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Construct as divided roadway.
6.3.12 - Utilities and Service Systems Impact 6.3.12.A:
The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity will increase the water demand from the City of Bakersfield. The project’s contribution to cumulative water demand is considered less than cumulatively considerable.(LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.12.B: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity will result in the construction of new water facilities which could cause environmental effects.(S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.12.B.1 is required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.12.C: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity will result in the construction of new wastewater facilities which could cause significant environmental effects. (S)
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.12.B.1, 5.12.C.2, and 5.12.C.3 are required
Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.12.D: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity will result in the construction of new drainage facilities which could cause significant environmental effects. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.12.E: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity could be served by a landfill with
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Note: (S) = Significant. (LTS) = Less than Significant. (NI) = No Impact 2-43
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec02-00 Exec_Summary.doc
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After Mitigation
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate cumulative solid waste disposal needs. (LTS) Section 6.3.13 - Population and Housing Impact 6.3.13.A: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in the project vicinity will induce substantial population growth in the project area. (LTS)
No mitigation measures are required. Less than significant.
Section 1.2 - Mineral Resources The operation of oil facilities could affect future land uses on the project site. (S)
Prior to approval of a tentative tract//parcel map, the project applicant shall submit a petroleum integration plan that shows how all existing petroleum-related facilities will be protected and integrated into the proposed
development and provides documentation of compliance with Section 17.46.010 and Section 15.66 of the City Municipal Code.
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
SECTION 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this Project Description is to describe the proposed project in a manner that will be
meaningful to the public, reviewing agencies and decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124
requires that a complete Project Description contain the following information: (1) a detailed map
showing the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project and a regional map showing the
location of the project; (2) a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project, which should
include the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of the project’s technical,
economic, and environmental characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses
of the EIR, including a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making, a list
of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental
review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, and local laws, regulations or
policies. An adequate project description need not be exhaustive, but should supply the detail
necessary for project evaluation.
3.1 - Project Location
The project site is located in and adjacent to the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (see
Exhibit 3-1). It encompasses approximately 2,182 acres 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 3-2). Approximately 640 acres of the project site are located within the Bakersfield city
limits and the remainder of the project site (1,542 acres) is located in unincorporated Kern County.
The project site includes portions of Sections 10 and 15 east of the proposed West Beltway alignment
and all of Sections 11, 13, and 14, Township 30 South, Range 26 East of the United States Geologic
Service 7.5’ series Stevens topographic quadrangle.
3.2 - Project Site Background
The project site is currently used for agricultural and oil production activities. Agricultural activities
have occurred onsite since the early 1970’s and oil production activities have occurred onsite since
the 1930’s. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Land Use Contract or within an
Agricultural Preserve (McIntosh & Associates 2005). The oil production activities have included the
drilling and operation of oil well and associated facilities such as sumps to contain drilling fluids.
3.3 - Site Development Constraints
The project site encompasses approximately 2,182 acres and includes various existing site
development constraints. These constraints include the following.
• Kern River. The Kern River is located north of the project site. According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the entire
northern portion of the project site, north of the Kern River Canal, is currently within a FEMA
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Zone “A” flood zone which is defined as areas subjected to flooding from 100-year frequency
storms. A portion of the site to the south of the Kern River Canal and a small area of the
southwestern portion of the site are also within FEMA Zone “A” flood zone.
• Kern River Canal. This is a man-made water feature which enters the site near the northeast
corner of the site and flows southwesterly, exiting the site approximately 4,000 feet south of
the extension of Ming Avenue. The canal is a surface-level, concrete-lined, trapezoidal
channel that conveys water across the site within a 100-foot wide easement.
• Oil Wells. The site currently includes 44 abandoned oil wells, 14 idle oil wells, and 18 active
oil wells. The oil exploration holes are likely to have had drilling and/or oil production sumps
which may contain oily drilling fluids mixed with loosely compacted soils; thus potential
hazardous materials could be present within the onsite soils. In addition, the dry holes and
abandoned oil wells may not have been properly abandoned in accordance with current
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations.
• Petroleum Pipelines. Two major Shell Oil petroleum pipelines cross the project site from the
northeast corner to the southwest corner. Additional smaller petroleum pipelines that currently
or previously connected to oil wells are also on the site.
• Natural Gas Pipelines. Two major Pacific Gas and Electric natural gas pipelines cross the
project site. Both cross in a northwest to southeast direction and are approximately 2,000 feet
apart. In addition, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) high pressure gas pipelines
extend north and south from the SCGC natural gas substation.
• Natural Gas Substations. The Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Tevis gas substation is
located along the northeastern PG&E natural gas pipeline immediately west of Buena Vista
Road. A SCGC gas substation is located along the SCGC gas pipelines and adjacent to the
southwestern PG&E natural gas pipeline that extends through the site. The SCGC substation is
located just south of the Kern River Canal.
• Railroad Line. The Asphalto Branch Railroad is adjacent to the southern boundary of the
project site. The railroad line crosses Buena Vista Road as an at-grade intersection.
3.4 - Project Characteristics
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to provide “[a] general description of the project’s technical,
economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any
and supporting public service facilities.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(c).)
3.4.1 - Technical Characteristics
The proposed project is the development of a new community on approximately 2,182 acres. The
new community will be developed in accordance with the West Ming Specific Plan which includes
provisions and regulations for orderly development within the Specific Plan area.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Land Use
The proposed project includes the development of a new community with residential, commercial,
recreational, schools, and light industrial uses. The project includes a maximum of 7,450 residential
units, 478,880 square feet of commercial (including office, service, and retail), 331,200 square feet of
town center commercial and mixed use (including office, service, and retail), 1,135,000 square feet of
special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public
transportation, and office). The proposed schools will be located within the residential neighborhoods
of the project site. Table 3-1 provides a statistical summary of the proposed land uses.
Table 3-1: Statistical Summary
Land Use Acres Maximum Dwelling
Units/Square Feet
Residential 1,511 7,450 DUs
Commercial 50 478,880 sf
Town Center Commercial and Mixed Use 63 331,200 sf
Schools
4 Elementary
1 Junior High School
69 4,838 students
Public Parks 56 NA
Roadways/Canal 213 NA
Special Uses 220 1,135,000 sf
Total 2,182 7,450 du
1,945,080 sf
du = dwelling unit
sf = square feet
NA = Not Applicable
Source: West Ming Specific Plan 2006.
General Plan Land Uses
The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will require an amendment to the existing
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from R-1A (Intensive Agriculture, 20-
acre minimum), R-MP (Resource - Mineral Petroleum), and OS (Open Space) to West Ming Specific
Plan. The Specific Plan provides for the General Plan land use designations that are identified in
Table 3-2 and shown in Exhibit 3-3. Following is a discussion of each designation.
WM-LR - West Ming Low Density Residential. Density in this designation is less than or
equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre and includes single-family detached and attached
housing, including townhomes, typical of tract developments and may include parks, water
elements, and churches.);
WM-LMR - West Ming Low Medium Density Residential. Density in this designation is
less than or equal to 10.0 dwelling units per net acre and includes single-family detached and
attached housing, including townhomes, duplexes, zero lot line developments, and small
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
multiple-family structures, such as triplexes, which require a full array of urban services and
may include parks, water elements, and churches.
WM-HMR - West Ming High-Medium Density Residential. Density in this designation is
less than or equal to 17.42 dwelling units/net acre and include single-family detached and
attached housing, including townhomes, duplexes, zero lot line developments, and small to
large multiple-family structures, which require a full array of urban services and may include
parks, water elements, and churches.);
WM-HR - High Density Residential. Density in this designation is less than or equal to 72.6
dwelling units per net acre and includes single-family detached and attached housing,
including townhomes, duplexes, zero lot line developments, and small to large multiple-
family structures. It is primarily composed of large multiple-family structures, such as
apartment, apartment hotels, and condominiums and may include parks, water elements, and
churches.
WM-GC - West Ming General Commercial. This designation allows for a maximum 1.0
floor area ratio and 4 stories. Retail and service facilities providing a broad range of goods
and services which serve the day-to-day needs of nearby residents are also included in this
designation.
WM-OC - West Ming Office Commercial. This designation allows for a maximum 1.0 floor
area ratio and 4 stories. Business and professional office uses, and specialty retail are also
included in this designation.
WM-MU - West Ming Mixed Use. This designation allows for a maximum 3.0 floor area
ratio. Major commercial centers combining professional office, major retail, and commercial
support services are included in this designation. This designation provides for intensive
development, characteristic of a commercial center within the City. It also provides the
opportunity for integration of medium and high density residential uses in conjunction with
commercial activities in order to create an active street life, enhance personal safety by
ensuring the presence of people in the street at different times, and promote the viability of
businesses. It may include parks and water elements.
WM-SU - West Ming Special Use. This is a combing land use designation that combines the
following land use designations as described in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan:
Light Industrial, Mineral and Petroleum, Public Facilities, Open Space, Open Space Parks,
Public Transportation, and Office.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Table 3-2: West Ming Specific Plan General Plan Land Use Designation Acreages
General Plan Land Use Designation Acreage
WM - LR 448
WM - LMR 980
WM - HMR 378
WM - HR 43
WM - OC 41
WM - GC 9
WM - MU 63
WM - SU 220
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, 2006.
Zoning Districts
The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will require an amendment to the existing
Bakersfield Zoning for approximately 640 acres on the project site from A-20-A (Agriculture Zone,
20-acre minimum) to West Ming Specific Plan. The project will also require the removal of the
existing County of Kern Zoning Districts from the project site and re-zone the 1,542 acres as West
Ming Specific Plan. The existing County of Kern Zoning Districts include A (Exclusive Agriculture
District), FPP (Floodplain Primary District); A-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-Geologic Hazard
Combining District).
The West Ming Specific Plan includes the zoning districts that are identified in Table 3-3 and shown
in Exhibit 3-4. Following is a discussion of each of the proposed zoning districts.
West Ming-One Family Dwelling Zone (WM-R1). This zone provides for low density one-
family dwellings and townhomes. Parks, schools and other public uses are also allowed in
this zone.
West Ming-Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling Zone (WM-R2). This zone provides for
lower to medium density detached and attached housing as well as one-family dwellings,
townhomes, and multiple family dwellings. Parks, schools, and other public uses are also
allowed in this zone.
West Ming-Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone (WM-R3). This zone provides for
medium to higher density housing, primarily attached. Parks, schools, and other public uses
are allowed.
West Ming-Professional and Administrative Office Zone (WM-CO). This zone allows a
wide array of business and professional office uses, as well as a number of specialty retail
uses.
West Ming-General Commercial Zone (WM-GC). This zone allows office, retail, and
service facilities providing a broad range of goods and services to serve the day to day needs
of nearby residents.
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
West Ming-Town Center Zone (WM-TC). This zone allows for a mix of commercial, office
and residential uses, both vertically and horizontally, that will allow for the creation of an
active community core with an active street life and a vibrant business center. Live/work
developments are also allowed in this zone.
West Ming-Special Use Zone (WM-SU). This zone provides for industrial, office, and
special uses as outlines in the zoning regulations in the West Ming Specific Plan. Mineral
and petroleum extraction, agriculture, and agricultural support uses are also allowed in this
zone.
Table 3-3: West Ming Specific Plan Zoning District Acreages
Zoning District Acreage
WM - R1 448
WM - R2 1,358
WM - R3 43
WM - CO 41
WM - GC 9
WM - TC 63
WM - SU 220
Source: West Ming Specific Plan 2006.
Villages
Villages are proposed to be established within the West Ming Specific Plan area (see Exhibit 3-3).
There are six residential villages (A through F) surrounding the Village Center. The residential
villages vary in density and are supported and provided services by the Village Center. The Village
Center District will function as the activity center of the Specific Plan containing retail commercial,
offices, and higher residential uses. The Town Center area of the Village Center will function as the
core of the activity area and will be a mixed use zone with higher density residential uses intermixed
with or above commercial uses. Live/work opportunities are also provided for in this area. A Special
Use District located adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad in the southeastern portion of the Specific
Plan will provide for more intense commercial and light industrial uses along with the existing oil
drilling and pumping sites. No residential development is planned for the Special Use District.
Dwelling Unit Limitations
As shown in Table 3-1, a maximum of 7,450 dwelling units will be developed on the project site.
The West Ming Specific Plan has identified a minimum and maximum number of dwelling units that
are permitted to be constructed within each of the proposed villages (see Table 3-4). The maximum
number of dwelling units can not be developed in each of the villages because the entire project site
can not exceed the provision of 7,450 dwelling units. A minimum number of dwelling units is
identified to allow flexibility in developing residential units within the villages while preserving the
village concept.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Table 3-4: Dwelling Unit Range
Dwelling Unit Range
Village
Minimum Maximum
A 800 1,403
B 300 598
C 300 740
D 400 995
E 250 652
F 700 1,995
Village Center 700 2,323
Total Total Dwelling Units Not to
Exceed 7,450
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, 2006.
Building Heights
The Specific Plan has identified the maximum height of buildings located within each zoning district.
The maximum heights will range from 35 to 75 feet throughout the project site. Table 3-5 identifies
the maximum height allowed in each zoning district.
Table 3-5: West Ming Specific Plan Maximum Building Height
Zoning District Maximum Building Height (feet)
WM - R1 35
WM - R2 55
WM - R3 55
WM - CO 60
WM - GC 60
WM - TC 65
WM - SU 75
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, 2006.
Annexation
Implementation of the proposed project will require annexation of the majority of the project site into
the City of Bakersfield. Approximately 640 acres of the project site are within the City of Bakersfield
city limits. This area is bounded by Buena Vista Road on the east, White Lane on the north, the
future extension of South Allen Road to the west, and Union Pacific Railroad on the south. The
remaining 1,542 acres of the project site are located west of the existing City limits within
unincorporated Kern County as shown in Exhibit 3-5. This unincorporated area will require
annexation approval by the City of Bakersfield as well as the County of Kern Local Agency
Formation Commission.
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Circulation
The proposed circulation system within the Specific Plan area includes roadways, trails, and
pedestrian accesses. Following is a discussion of each mode of circulation.
Roadways
The roadway system for the proposed project includes both offsite and onsite public streets. The
roadway system is shown on Exhibit 3-6 and consists of arterials, collectors, city collectors, local
collectors, town center streets, and roundabouts. The project includes the preservation of right-of-
way for the West Beltway through the project site. The project will require approval of various
General Plan Circulation Element amendments. These amendments include a deletion, realignment,
and extension of arterials, and deletions and a realignment of collectors. The specific amendments
are described in Section 3.6.1.
Trail System and Pedestrian Access
Bicycle and pedestrian access is proposed throughout the project site. Both modes of transportation
are provided within the multi-purpose trail system identified in Exhibit 3-7. A key trail segment will
be provided through a major open space element that traverses the project site. All project trails will
be 10-feet wide and constructed with concrete or asphalt. Two trail under-crossings will be
constructed; one at White Lane west of South Allen Road and the second along South Allen Road
south of White Lane. Additional neighborhood trails providing bicycle and pedestrian connection to
parks, schools, water elements, and commercial areas will also be provided.
Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed project will include a public facilities system that will serve the land uses within the
West Ming Specific Plan. Following is a discussion of the various systems.
Water System
Potable water for the proposed land uses will be provided by the City of Bakersfield. Water is
proposed to be obtained from existing water lines as well as proposed water wells (see Exhibit 3-8).
Existing water lines within and adjacent to the project site are located along Buena Vista Road, South
Allen Road, Kern River Canal, and Ming Avenue. There are eight proposed well sites that are
conceptually proposed within the project site.
Sewer System
Sewer service is provided by the City of Bakersfield. Sewer is proposed to be provided by new lines
within the project area and existing lines adjacent to the project site (see Exhibit 3-9). The existing
sewer lines are located along South Allen Road, White Lane, and Buena Vista Road. The project site
also includes an existing sewer lift station along White Lane west of Buena Vista Road. Wastewater
generated by the project would be conveyed to the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3.
02160029 • 05/2006 | 3-9_utility_concept_sewer.cdr
Exhibit 3-9
Utility Concept Plan - Sewer
Michael Brandman Associates
H
NORT
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, April 2006.
Feet
2000020001000
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Storm Drain System
A storm drain system is proposed to protect structures and facilities within the project site and
downstream receptors (see Exhibit 3-10). Interim construction of temporary retention and detention
facilities will be provided within the project site. The ultimate storm drain collection system will
include retention and detention basins, storm drain lines, and an outfall/pump station facility to
convey storm water to the Kern River Canal.
Other Utility Services
The project will also include the provision of electrical power by Pacific Gas & Electric, natural gas
by Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas, and telephone, internet, and cable television.
The utilities will be underground and incorporated within the street rights-of-way or within the utility
easements on private property.
Schools
The project site is within the Panama-Buena Vista Union School District for elementary schools (K-
6) and junior high schools (grades 7-8) and the Kern High School District for high schools (9-12).
The project includes a provision for five schools to be located within the residential neighborhoods of
the Specific Plan and will be approximately 13 to 14 acres in size. Approximately 69 acres are
allocated for future school sites within the Specific Plan. However, offsite school sites and facilities
may be utilized in lieu of onsite school sites and facilities where available and appropriate. The exact
school site locations and exact sizes are not yet determined and will be located in consultation with
the School District. High school students from the project site will attend Kern High School District
schools outside of the Specific Plan area.
Parks
The Specific Plan includes the provisions for public and private parks and open space. A minimum
of 56 acres of public park area will be provided within the Specific Plan area. Exhibit 3-11 illustrates
the location of the public parks within Villages A, C, D, E, and F. The parks will be a minimum of 6
acres in size and include typical amenities such as bathrooms, tot lots, courts with no lighting, water
elements, trails, shade structures, landscaped areas, and/or other park or open space elements, or
combinations thereof. An Active park will be provided in Village B and will include a minimum of
15 acres in size. The Active Park is part of the minimum 56 acres of public parks.
Private parks and other open space areas will also be provided within the Specific Plan area. The
major private parks include West Central Park, recreation centers, and a lake (see Exhibit 3-12). Five
two-acre recreation centers will be provided within Villages A, C, D, F, and the Village Center. The
recreation centers may contain swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, community buildings, picnic
areas, tot lots, and other similar community and neighborhood facilities. One five-acre lake with
public access will be provided. The lake will be located in the Village Center District and although it
will be private, it will be accessible to the public by means of the trail system. The West Ming
Central Park will be approximately 20 acres in size and developed generally within the Village Center
District over the existing 50-foot wide gas line easement that traverses diagonally across the project
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
site. The West Ming Central Park will accommodate a wide variety of community events such as art
shows, bazaars, and unstructured activities such as picnic and fitness par courses. Other open space
areas will be provided within the various villages. These open space areas will include mini parks,
pocket parks, and other similar elements. The details of these other type of open spaces will be
provided within individual subdivision maps.
Phasing
The various areas of the Specific Plan will be developed in phases over an approximate 20-year
period. The anticipated phasing of the project is illustrated in Exhibit 3-13. There are 11 phases;
Phases 1-8 include the development of residential areas and supporting uses such as schools and
parks, while Phases 9-11 include the development of the commercial, office, industrial, and
recreational uses. Grading within the Specific Plan area is expected to occur as development is
proposed and implemented. Therefore, the existing agriculture and oil production activities will
continue and be located adjacent to new developed areas of the Specific Plan until each area of the
project site is developed.
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement is proposed as part of the West Ming Specific Plan. A Development
Agreement is a contract between a local government such as the City of Bakersfield and a developer.
The proposed Development Agreement specifies the responsibilities of the City and the developer of
the project. It provides that the developer shall be permitted to develop the project site in accordance
with the West Ming Specific Plan. For the term of the Development Agreement, 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 project
site shall be those rules, regulations and official policies in force at the time of the effective date of
the Development Agreement. In addition, the Development Agreement 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 or otherwise specified in the
Development Agreement. A copy of the proposed Development Agreement is available for review at
the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.
3.4.2 - Economic Characteristics
The proposed project includes a mix of residential, commercial, recreational, schools, and light
industrial uses within the Specific Plan area.
DETENTION BASIN*
OUTFALL/PUMP STATION TO
KERN RIVER CANAL
RETENTION BASIN
STORM DRAIN CONDUIT/
DIRECTION OF FLOW
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
*Detention Basins may be used within
the project area. These detention
facilities may be incorporated within the
water features of the project.
STORM DRAIN
This plan is conceptual in nature - The final
drainage systems will be based on actual
design parameters and calculations to be
prepared at the time of development.
The storm drain facilities will be constructed
per "City of Bakersfield Subdivision and
Engineering Design Manual," Division Two.
Drainage shall be provided through a series of
drainage detention and retention basins,
inlets, concrete conduits, and outfall stations.
Project water features may serve as "detention
basins" for peak flows, with outfall to
ultimate "retention basins" and/or the Kern
River Canal.
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
02160029 • 08/2006 | 3-10_storm_drain_plan.cdr
Exhibit 3-10
Storm Drain Plan
Michael Brandman Associates
NORTH
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Source: West Ming Specific Plan, April 2006.
Feet
2000020001000
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Based on the average household size as provided by the Year 2000 Federal Census for like adjacent
development, the proposed project would result in a direct population increase of approximately
19,020 persons. This is based on a persons per household size of 3.01 for the 4,748 single family
dwelling units (4,748 households x 3.01 persons per household = 14,291 persons) and 1.75 for the
2,702 multiple family dwelling units (2,702 households x 1.75 persons per household = 4,729
persons).
The proposed project will include employment generating uses that will provide a substantial amount
of employment opportunities. General employment factors were obtained by Kern COG. These
factors included 17 employees per acre for commercial uses, 13 employees per acre for industrial
uses, and 2 employees per acre for schools. Based on the proposed land uses and the employment
factors approximately 4,226 employment opportunities would be generated within the implementation
of the West Ming Specific Plan.
3.4.3 - Environmental Characteristics
Environmental characteristics associated with the project and the site are discussed in Section 4 -
Environmental Setting, and Section 5 - Project Impacts, and Section 6 - Cumulative Impacts.
3.5 - Project Objectives
The project sponsor has identified the following objectives for the proposed project:
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.
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.
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
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.
3.6 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR
This EIR is being prepared by the City of Bakersfield to assess the potential environmental impacts
that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed West Ming
Specific Plan. The City is the lead agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the
project and project approvals. It is the intent of the City to regulate the installation of all public
infrastructure improvements and all future development associated with the West Ming Specific Plan.
3.6.1 - Primary Discretionary Actions
The following are the primary discretionary actions addressed as part of this Program EIR.
City of Bakersfield
Annexation
The project will require approval of annexation of 1,542 acres.
General Plan Land Use Element Amendment
The project will require an amendment to the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use
designation from R-IA (Intensive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum), R-MP (Resource - Mineral
Petroleum), and OS (Open Space) to West Ming Specific Plan.
General Plan Circulation Element Amendment
The project will require various Circulation Element amendments that include a deletion,
realignment, and extension of arterials, and deletions and a realignment of collectors. Following is a
list of principal amendments required to implement the project.
• Extension of Ming Avenue as an arterial east of Renfro Road to the proposed West Beltway
• Realignment of White Lane (arterial) within Section 14
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 3-39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
• Deletion of a portion of White Lane (arterial) within Section 15
• Deletion of an east-west collector street along the mid-section line of Section 10
• Deletion of a portion of an east-west collector along the mid-section line of Section 11
• Realignment of an east-west collector along the mid-section lines of Section 13 and 14
• Deletion of an east-west collector along the mid-section line of Section 14
• Deletion of a portion of a north-south collector along the mid-section line of Section 13
• Deletion of a majority of the north-south collector along the mid-section line of Section 11
• Deletion of the north-south collector along the mid-section line of Section 14
General Plan Kern River Plan Element Amendment
The project will require an amendment to the existing Kern River Plan Element land use designation
for the portion of the project site north of the Kern River Canal from 8.1 (Intensive Agriculture) to 5.3
(maximum 10 units per net acre).
West Ming Specific Plan
The project will require approval of the West Ming Specific Plan which includes the guidelines and
regulations to develop within the project site. Development will occur in accordance with the
General Plan land use designations and Zoning Districts depicted on Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4,
respectively.
Zone Change
The project will require approval of a re-zone of approximately 640 acres from A-20A (Intensive
Agriculture, 20-acre minimum) to West Ming Specific Plan. In addition, the project will require the
remaining 1,542 acres of the site to be removed from County of Kern Zoning Districts which include
A (Exclusive Agriculture District), FPP (Floodplain Primary District); A-GH (Exclusive Agriculture-
Geologic Hazard Combining District) and establish this area as West Ming Specific Plan.
Development Agreement
The project includes a Development Agreement that will need to be approved by the City and the
applicant.
County of Kern Local Agency Formation Commission
Annexation
The project will require approval of annexation of 1,542 acres into the City of Bakersfield from the
County of Kern Local Agency Formation Commission.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Conditional and Final Letters of Map Revisions
The project will require conditional and final letters of map revisions for the proposed extension of
the existing levee along the Kern River to remove a portion of the project site from the 100-year
floodplain.
Project Description West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
3-40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
3.6.2 - Subsequent Discretionary Approvals
In addition to the discretionary approvals identified above, the EIR could be used for the following
subsequent discretionary approvals if determined appropriate by the approving agency.
City of Bakersfield
Parcel Maps
Individual parcel maps will be subject to review and approval by the City.
Vesting Tentative and Final Tract Maps
Individual tract maps will be subject to review and approval by the City.
Conditional Use Permits
Approval of future uses which are conditionally permitted under the West Ming Specific Plan is
subject to review and approval by the City.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
Oil Well Abandonment Permit
Existing abandoned wells and future well that are abandoned will require a permit.
Oil Well Drilling Permit
Future wells that are proposed to be drilled on the project site will require a permit.
Remedial Operations of Oil Wells Permit
Significant changes to existing well bores will require a permit.
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
The school district will be required to review and approve the location and development of future
public schools for kindergarten through 8th grades on the project site.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR General Description of Environmental Setting
Michael Brandman Associates 4-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec04-00 Enviromental Setting.doc
SECTION 4: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield. The Bakersfield
Metropolitan area is near the eastern edge of the broad San Joaquin Valley and at the base of the
Sierra Nevada. The Kern River is the major hydrologic feature of the area, bringing water from Lake
Isabella reservoir through the Kern River Canyon. Irrigation developed rapidly in the Bakersfield
area in the late 1880’s and large areas were converted to farmlands. After the turn of the century, the
oil and gas industry developed rapidly in the Bakersfield area. Currently, farmlands as well as oil-
related uses are being converted to urban land uses.
The approximately 2,182-acre project site is bordered by Buena Vista Road and South Allen Road to
the east, the Asphalto Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad to the south, the proposed West
Beltway Alignment to the west, and Ming Avenue and the Kern River to the north. The project site
consists of all the area within Sections 11, 13, 14; and portions of Sections 10 and 15. Approximately
640 acres of the project site are located within the Bakersfield city limits and the remainder of the
project site (1,542 acres) is located in unincorporated Kern County.
The project site has a long history of farming and agricultural production. The majority of the project
site has been used as agricultural land from the early 1970’s to the present. Currently the project is
used for agriculture and oil production activities. As of the year 2003, 1,928 acres (88 %) of the
project site was used for agricultural production; the remaining 253 acres (12 %) of the project site
was used for oil and gas activities, water facilities, and open space/undeveloped land. There are
currently 8 active water wells, 2 inactive water wells, and 1 idle water well located on the project site.
The subject property has also been used for oil exploration and oil production activities from the
1930’s to the present. There are currently 44 abandoned oil wells, 14 inactive oil wells, 18 active oil
wells, and 77 exploratory oil wells located on the project site. High-pressure petroleum pipelines and
natural gas pipelines also traverse the project site at various locations.
In general, the area surrounding the project site is predominantly urbanized to the east and to the
north beyond the Kern River, with oil fields and farmland to the south and west. Specifically, the
land uses surrounding the project site include the following. The Kern River is adjacent to the
northeastern corner of the project site and traverses from northeast to southwest just above the project
site; residential communities exist across the Kern River and across White Lane and Allen Road to
the east; Stockdale High School is located just east of the project site at the northeastern corner of the
intersection of Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road; residential communities exist across Buena Vista
Road to the east; agricultural land and the Cranfield Ranch Oil Field are located just south of the
project site across the Asphalto Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad; and agricultural land and
groundwater recharge areas exist across the proposed West Beltway Alignment to the west. In
addition, the approved and not yet constructed 2,000-acre McAllister Ranch project, which is a
master-planned community that was approved in the 1990’s is located south and adjacent to the
General Description of Environmental Setting West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
4-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec04-00 Enviromental Setting.doc
Asphalt Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad, McAllister Ranch is proposed to include a wide
range of residential, commercial, recreational, community facilities and open space uses.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
SECTION 5: PROJECT IMPACTS
5.1 - Agriculture Resources
The following analysis of project impacts is based on the development of the West Ming Specific
Plan addressed in Section 3, Project Description.
5.1.1 - Introduction
Information in this section is based upon the following documents:
• Farmland Conversion Study, McIntosh and Associates, April 2005. This document is
contained in Appendix B of this EIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. This document is available for review
at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield,
California 93301.
5.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Agricultural Setting
As the region encompassing Bakersfield continues to urbanize, blending the need to preserve
agricultural land and open space with the demand for development in the metropolitan edges has
become one of the many challenges facing the City of Bakersfield and Kern County today. In the
past decade there has been a migration of urban development flow westerly from the metropolitan
area of Bakersfield into the once unincorporated areas of Kern County. This is primarily due to the
growth of development westerly from the northwest and southwest areas of Bakersfield, as the
extension of infrastructure has occurred to serve urban land uses.
The valley region of Kern County is highly suitable for agricultural cultivation. A review of the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Crop Reports indicates a history of high agricultural
production for many crops over the years and continuing to the present. Factors that influence high
agricultural activity today are climate, availability of water, dependable market demand, good soils,
and most importantly, proper management. Agricultural production in Bakersfield and Kern County
contribute significantly to the economy of the state. Of the top 10 agriculture-producing counties
nationwide, eight are in California. Kern County outranks the agricultural production of 20 states.
Kern County is the fourth largest producer of agricultural products in California.
The 2003 Agricultural Crop Report prepared by the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
states that Kern County contains 866,226 acres of harvested land. Within that acreage, 96,976 acres
were harvested for vegetable crops and 487,544 acres for field crops. The 2003 total value of
agricultural commodities produced in Kern County was $2,477,716,000, an increase of approximately
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
4.75 percent over the 2002 crop value. The total harvested acreage decreased approximately 1.55
percent. The 2003 top six commodities were grapes, citrus, carrots, almonds, milk, and cotton.
Local Agricultural Activity
Agriculture in the Bakersfield area has been extensive since the introduction of livestock in the
1860’s. Livestock raising on large land grants and some production of grain under dry-farming
methods were the primary agricultural pursuits until about 1880. Rapid agricultural development
occurred after 1880 due to the development of irrigation, cheap land, favorable crop yields, the arrival
of two railroads, the development of the petroleum industry and access to markets (City of
Bakersfield, 2002).
Production figures for primary crops including cotton, alfalfa, milo, wheat and barley, plums,
peaches, apricots, citrus, grapes, nuts, truck crops, potatoes and other vegetables show that the
Bakersfield area is highly suitable for agricultural cultivation. A review of the California Department
of Food and Agriculture annual crop reports indicates a history of high agricultural production for
many crops over the years and continuing to the present time. Factors which influence high
agricultural productivity today are climate, availability of water, dependable market demand and good
soils (City of Bakersfield, 2002).
Historical and Current Site Uses
The project site has a long history of farming and agricultural production. The majority of the project
site has predominately been used for agricultural production from as early as the 1970’s. Within the
project site, Sections 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 each have been used as agricultural land from as early as
the 1970’s to the present.
As of the year 2003, 1,928 acres (88 %) of the project site was used for agricultural production; the
remaining 253 acres (12 %) of the project site was used for oil and gas activities, water facilities, and
open space/undeveloped land. The subject property had approximately 1,928 acres of carrots, garlic,
potatoes, and corn silage growing in 2003.
Soils
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. These soil types
prevalent on the project area are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the
Northwestern region and defined in the Farmland Conversion Study contained in Appendix B of this
Draft EIR. The following is an acreage break-down of each soil type within the project site.
• Approximately 148 acres (7 %) of the project site are in the Cajon Loamy Sand category;
• Approximately 830 acres (38 %) of the project site are in the Cajon Sandy Loam category;
• Approximately 306 acres (14 %) of the project site are in the Excelsior Sandy Loam category;
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
• Approximately 813 acres (37 %) of the project site are in the Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam
category; and
• Approximately 85 acres (4 %) of the project site are in the Wasco Sandy Loam category.
Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is governed by agricultural and farmland regulations established by the State of
California and the City of Bakersfield. The primary agricultural regulatory mechanism within the
City comes from the California Department of Conservation, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s
Zoning Ordinance. The following planning programs and regulations guide the use and protection of
agricultural lands within the State of California and are applicable to the proposed project.
Land Conservation (Williamson) Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Govt. Code Sec. 51200), commonly referred to as the
Williamson Act, was established with the basic intent of encouraging the preservation of the state’s
agricultural lands in view of the increasing trends toward their “premature and unnecessary”
urbanization. The Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for
the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return,
landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are
based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive
an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention
Act of 1971.
The County of Kern has determined that 1,690,217 acres of land in Kern County are under
Williamson Act Land Use Contract and under the Farmland Security Zone Contract, down 29,646
acres from the previous year. Both of these contracts require that lands be within an established
Agricultural Preserve. Agricultural lands that are not in a preserve face the greatest threat for
conversion, as they are assessed higher property taxes due to their proximity to urbanization.
The project site is not under a Williamson Act Land Use Contract or within an Agricultural Preserve.
Farmland Security Zone Contract
In 1998, the State Department of Conservation passed the Farmland Security Zone legislation that
would allow individual counties to establish an additional program for farmlands to enter into
contract with the state. The Farmland Security Zone is a 20-year self-renewing contract that allows
property owners to receive an additional 35 percent in tax savings above that which is received under
the Williamson Act contract. The Farmland Security Zone legislation authorizes landowners to
petition the county board of supervisors to rescind their existing Williamson Act contract in favor of a
new Farmland Security Zone Contract.
As of October 2001, Farmland Security Zone-contracted lands in Kern County included 13,014 acres
of Prime Farmlands and 72,197 acres of Non-prime Farmlands. Kern County lands under Williamson
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
Act contract and Farmland Security Zone contract accounted for approximately 1,719,863 acres.
Both of these contracts require that lands be within an established agricultural preserve.
The project site is not within a Farmland Security Zone.
State Farmland Mapping Program
The California Department of Conservation (CDC) established the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982 in response to a critical need for assessing the location, quality,
and quantity of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands over time. Public Resources Code
Section 21060.1 (CEQA) defines agricultural land for purposes of assessing environmental impacts
using the FMMP categories. The FMMP is a non-regulatory program and provides a consistent and
impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The FMMP
produces maps and statistical data available to decision makers for use in assessing present status,
reviewing trends, analyzing impacts, and planning for the future of California’s agricultural land
resources.
The CDC has determined agricultural lands are to be rated according to soil quality and irrigation
status and identified by the following seven categories, collectively referred to Farmland: Prime
Farmland; Farmland of Statewide Importance; Unique Farmland; Farmland of Local Importance;
Grazing Land; Urban and Built-up Land; and Other Land. These terms are defined in the Farmland
Conversion Study contained in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. The entire project site is identified as
Prime Farmland in the FMMP.
Prime Farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to
sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing seasons
and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yield crops when treated and managed,
including water management, according to current farming methods. The land must have been used
for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping
date.
Even though the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States
Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service identifies the entire site as Prime Farmland,
approximately 67.8 acres have historically been used for petroleum production (including oil wells),
28.64 acres are occupied by the Kern River Canal, 1.43 acres are water wells, and 5.48 acres are
occupied by utilities structures (Southern California Gas Substation and Pacific Gas & Electric Tevis
Substation), totaling approximately 103.4 acres.
In addition, the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) (G.C. Sec. 51201), defines
“prime agricultural land,” or prime farmland, by the following criteria:
1. All land that qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the Natural Resource Conservation
Service land use capability classifications;
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
2. Land that qualifies for rating 80-100 in the Storie Index Rating;
3. Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual
carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre per year, as defined by the
United States Department of Agriculture;
4. Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing
period of fewer than five years and that will normally return during the commercial bearing
period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production
not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre; or
5. Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an
annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the
previous five years.
The proposed project site includes only three types of soils that are Class I and II soils and have Storie
Indexes above 80, therefore meeting the California Land Conservation Act (G.C. § 51201) standards
for prime farmland classification. These map units are Excelsior Sandy Loam (#152), Kimberlina
Fine Sandy Loam (#174), and Wasco Sandy Loam (#243).
City of Bakersfield Agricultural Regulations
Land uses within agricultural areas in the planning boundary are controlled by city and county general
plans and zoning ordinances. These documents identify the type of land uses permitted in agricultural
zones, and call out the development parameters within each agricultural land use category (City of
Bakersfield, 2002.
Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
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’s limits is zoned A-20A (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).
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
The adopted General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Bakersfield. The
General Plan allows for development within planned growth boundaries. The General Plan defines
the long-range, citywide, and comprehensive physical growth strategy as well as its economic, social,
and environmental goals. The General Plan sets goals and policies for agricultural land uses and
planning within the City. Soils and agriculture goals, policies, and implementation measures
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
contained within the Conservation Element of the General Plan that are relevant to the proposed
development are described below.
In general, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan goal is to preserve prime farmland soil units
that meet the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) standards. Accordingly, the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan - Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Element - states among
its Goals (#2) is to promote soil conservation and minimize development of “prime agricultural land,”
or prime farmland, as also defined by the following criteria:
• Capability Class I and/or II irrigated soils;
• 80-100 Storie Index rating;
• Gross crop return of $200 or more per acre per year; or
• Annual carrying capacity of one animal unit per acre per year.
As previously mentioned the proposed project site includes three types of soils that are Class I and II
soils and have Storie Indexes above 80, therefore also meeting Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
standards for prime farmland classification.
In addition, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan - Conservation/Soils and Agriculture
Element - includes the following policies that directly apply to the proposed project:
Policy 1. Determine the extent and location of all prime agricultural land within the study area.
Policy 2. Review development permits that propose subdividing or urbanizing prime
agricultural land to ascertain how continued commercial agricultural production in
the project vicinity will be affected.
Policy 3. Protect areas designated for agricultural use, which include Class I and II agricultural
soils having surface delivery water systems, from the encroachment of residential and
commercial subdivision development activities.
Policy 4. Monitor the amount of prime agricultural land taken out of production for urban uses
or added within the plan area.
Policy 14. When considering proposals to convert designated agricultural lands to non-
agricultural use, the decision making body of the City and County shall evaluate the
following factors to determine the appropriateness of the proposal:
• 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
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
• 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
• Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc.
5.1.3 - Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of an impact on agricultural resources are based on the
initial study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project may be
considered to have a significant environmental impact if it would:
• 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;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
5.1.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Farmland
Impact 5.1.A: The project would convert Prime Farmland as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
The conversion of farmland on the project site will allow for the development of various land uses.
As defined by the California Land Conservation Act, this project would convert 2,182 acres of Prime
Farmland to non-agricultural land use.
When considering proposals to convert designated agricultural lands to nonagricultural use, the City
of Bakersfield will consider the following factors to determine the level of impact:
• 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.)
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
• 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
• Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc.
Each of these criteria is applied to the project site conditions and is analyzed below:
Soil Quality
The Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of
Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service) presents a list of map units that meet the requirements for
prime farmland if water for irrigation is available. The list includes all soil types encountered within
the project area, corresponding to approximately 2,182 acres of potential prime farmland if irrigated
as classified by the USDA. However, as defined by the California Land Conservation act (G.C. §
51201), prime agricultural soils include Class I and II soils, storie index 80-100 soils, vineyards and
orchards, and soils which yield a minimum of $200 an acre per year. As previously noted in Section
5.1.2, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan - Conservation/Soils and Agriculture Element states
among its Goals (#2) to promote soil conservation and minimize development of prime agricultural
land as defined by the following criteria:
• Capability Class I and/or II irrigated soils;
• 80-100 Storie Index rating;
• Gross crop return of $200 or more per acre per year; or
• Annual carrying capacity of one animal unit per acre per year.
As previously stated, the proposed project site includes only three types of soils that, as classified by
the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, are Class I and II soils and
have Storie Indexes above 80, therefore meeting the California Land Conservation Act (G.C. §
51201) and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan standards for prime farmland classification. These
map units are Excelsior Sandy Loam (#152), Kimberlina Fine Sandy Loam (#174), and Wasco Sandy
Loam (#243). Approval and implementation of the land use change will result in a loss of
approximately 1,204 acres of soil capability Class I and II irrigated prime agricultural land. This is
considered a significant adverse impact.
Furthermore, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan states that conversion of prime agricultural
lands to urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered to
be a significant adverse impact.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
The General Plan currently designates the project site as RI-A (Resource Intensive Agriculture,
minimum 20-acre parcel size). As defined by the California Land Conservation Act, this project
would convert approximately 1,204 acres of soil capability Class I and II irrigated prime agricultural
land. The proposed amendment to the General Plan would convert the intended use of the project site
from agriculture to urbanized and developed conditions.
Availability of Irrigation Water
The subject property has a total of eight (8) active agricultural water wells and almost all of the water
from these wells is used for irrigation of the crops on the site. Water demands change somewhat
when croplands are converted to urban uses. Urban water consumption is higher in most industrial
uses, however commercial and residential consume less water. Water agencies can charge a
development more money for less water consumption.
Irrigation in a drought year with potential periods of power outages and the announcements of
reduced water supply can severely reduce vegetable yields. Growers have seen increases in water
supply costs for their crops which are attributed to the higher costs on energy to run the pump. The
abandonment of the agricultural wells will be phased as the agricultural production ceases and as
development occurs on site.
Proximity to non-agricultural uses
The subject property is already in close proximity to non-agricultural uses, which have encroached
upon the project site. Therefore the level of significance of any impacts is considered less than
significant due to existing restrictions and limitations placed on the growers because of the existing
nearby residential developments. The subject property, as well as others in the area, is the next
logical step for urbanization in this area due to existing and pending development surrounding the
property and the existing significant impacts to the crop production.
Proximity to intensive parcelization
The encroachment of urban uses on existing agricultural areas can result in negative interactions
between farmers and urban neighbors. Farming operations can affect urban neighbors by creating
inconveniences or discomforts such as equipment noise, odors from manure and other chemicals, and
dust or smoke. Residential uses can create adverse impacts to farmers such as the introduction of
pests, disease and weeds, increased complaints about noise, dust, smoke, odors, and spray drift from
pesticide and fertilizer use, restrictions to the application of pesticides and chemicals, increased
flooding and siltation, and increased traffic, vandalism, and trespassing. For the proposed project, the
impact of urban development on local growers is considered less than significant due to existing
restrictions and limitations placed on the grower with the proximity of existing residential
developments nearby.
With respect to cumulative growth-inducing impacts, properties adjacent to the project site are
currently impacted by existing urban development. It is not anticipated that this proposed project will
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
significantly impact additional lands to convert to urban uses, since this area is buffered by the
planned West Beltway on the west, existing residential development on the east and northeast and
Kern Water Bank Authority recharge areas to the west and northwest. In addition, the planned and
approved McAllister Specific Plan is located south of the project site. Properties within an
approximate 2-mile radius have already planned for the eventual urbanization of those lands by not
renewing their Williamson land use contracts.
Although agricultural lands nearby are currently producing agricultural crops, urban land use
designations and existing and planned residential development projects for the area provide the
evidence that urbanization is already planned for the area. The project site has been significantly and
unavoidably affected by the close proximity of urbanized areas. Farming practices are restricted as to
the manner of application and type of herbicides and pesticides that can be utilized in the vicinity of
these urbanized areas. The subject properties as well as others in the area are the next logical step for
urbanization in this area due to existing and pending development surrounding the property and the
potential impacts to the existing crop production.
Effects on properties subject to Williamson Act land use contracts
Properties within an approximate 2-mile radius have already planned for the eventual urbanization of
those lands by not renewing their Williamson Act land use contracts. Therefore development of the
project would not affect adjacent properties subject to Williamson Act land use contracts.
Ability to be provided with urban services
The project site is adjacent to existing residential development within the City limits. Groundwater is
available and existing 16-inch waterlines are located along Buena Vista Road and White Lane. The
City of Bakersfield will provide water for the proposed project. According to McIntosh and
Associates, a water “will serve” letter has been provided and sewer is available through the City of
Bakersfield. Therefore, the conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the area.
Ability to affect the application of agricultural chemicals on nearby agricultural properties
Urban encroachment affects adjacent lands remaining in agricultural production as conflicts arise
from the infringement of the new development, which would include people and animals, into the
area. The level of significance of any impact on local growers resulting from development of the
proposed project is considered less than significant due to already existing restrictions and limitations
placed on the grower due to the proximity of existing residential developments nearby.
Ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature conversion of prime
agricultural lands
The project site is in close proximity to non-agricultural uses, which have encroached upon the site.
Therefore, the level of significance of any impacts is considered less than significant due to existing
restrictions and limitations placed on the growers because of the existing nearby residential
developments.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
Adjacent properties are currently impacted by existing urban development. It is not anticipated that
the proposed project would significantly impact additional lands to convert to urban uses, since this
area is buffered by the planned West Beltway on the west, existing residential development on the
east and northeast and Kern Water Bank Authority recharge areas to the west and northwest.
Demonstrated Project need
It is assumed that future development in the City would continue to include “prime” agricultural soils
that exist on the Valley floor. This loss has not limited itself to the City of Bakersfield and Kern
County, but has become an issue of statewide concern. The General Plan currently designates the
project site as RI-A (Resource Intensive Agriculture, minimum 20-acre parcel size). As defined by
the California Land Conservation act (G.C. § 51201) and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the
project would convert approximately 1,204 acres of soil capability Class I and II irrigated prime
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The proposed amendment to the General Plan would
convert the intended use of the project site from agriculture to urbanized and developed conditions.
The Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan concludes that conversion of prime agricultural lands to
urban uses will result in a reduction of the regional agricultural economy and is considered to be a
significant adverse impact. However, the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan encourages the
orderly outward expansion of new urban development that maintains continuity of existing
development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services.
Due to existing residential uses adjacent to the property and pending development surrounding the
property, the proposed project is a logical expansion of urbanization and residential development in
the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, the proposed project would maintain
continuity of existing development and comply with the General Plan’s criteria.
Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc.
If residential developments do not include buffer zones in their design, adjacent to agricultural fields,
growers must sometimes allocate a portion of their land to the creation of a buffer zone. As an
example, growers might be required to refrain from spraying or harvesting the outside rows of their
crops. In those cases, buffer zones represent a loss to the farmer of both crop production and income.
However, with commercial development, a buffer zone may include a parking lot or landscape area.
Farmers can utilize their entire site for crop production if the adjacent development is commercial or
industrial in nature as these types of uses are not considered to be sensitive receptors.
Boundaries and buffer zones are also required for organic farms. Boundaries of land for certified
organic farms must be clearly marked by permanent physical objects (i.e., roads, fences, streams,
etc.). Buffer zones are sometimes needed to protect certified crops from contamination. Given the
widespread use of toxic pollutants, preventative measures to stop the contaminating of crops from
sources beyond the grower’s control may not always be possible. Buffer zones can consist of a road,
canal, walls, easements, setbacks, etc.
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
The future development of the project site does not include an onsite buffer zone as the proposed
development is intended to be similar to the adjacent subdivision on the north and east. The recharge
basins to the north will be physically separated by the construction of a 110-foot wide arterial road.
In addition, the West Beltway will be a minimum 210-foot wide buffer and the railroad tracks to the
south create a buffer. Landscaping adjacent to the road, along with a solid wall or builder fence helps
to create a buffer from the agricultural activities. Therefore, the future roadways and existing railroad
right of way would provide a buffer between future development on the site and the existing offsite
agricultural lands.
Significance Conclusion
Based on the preceding analysis, conversion of farmland on the project site is considered a significant
impact for the following reasons:
• The project site contains approximately 55 percent (1,204 acres) prime soils classified as Prime
Farmland.
• The project site contains eight (8) active agricultural water wells and almost all of the water
from these wells is used for irrigation of the crops on the site.
• The current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation of majority of the
project site is 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). These designations do not allow for urban development of the site.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than
significant.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
Zoning
Impact 5.1.B: The project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
As previously stated, the portion of the project site located within the City of Bakersfield’s limits is
zoned A-20A (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 applicant proposes to annex the project site into the City’s incorporated boundaries.
Accordingly, a zone change is proposed that would re-zone the entire project site as implementation
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Agriculture Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
of the proposed project would conflict with the existing onsite zoning that allows agricultural
activities. Therefore this impact would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than
significant.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
Williamson Act
Impact 5.1.C: The project would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract.
As previously discussed, the project site is not under a Williamson Act Land Use Contract or within
an Agricultural Preserve. Therefore, no potential conflicts would occur, and therefore, no impacts
would occur from project development.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Surrounding Agricultural Uses
Impact 5.1.D: The project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use.
With the implementation of the proposed project, agricultural uses on the project site would be
discontinued. Urban uses including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses would take the
place of discontinued agricultural uses.
With the implementation of the proposed project, the conversion of farmland on the project site will
not significantly impact additional agricultural lands to convert to urban uses, since this area is
buffered by the planned West Beltway on the west, existing residential development on the east and
northeast and Kern Water Bank Authority recharge areas to the west and northwest. Existing farming
activities have been affected by the close proximity of these urbanized areas. Farming practices were
restricted as to the manner of application and type of herbicides and pesticides that could be used in
the vicinity of these urbanized areas. The subject properties as well as others in the area are the next
logical step for urbanization in this area due to existing and pending development surrounding the
property and the impacts to the crop production. Properties within an approximate two mile radius
have already planned for the eventual urbanization of those lands by not renewing their Williamson
land use contracts. Therefore, the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact on
surrounding agricultural lands to converting to non-agricultural uses.
Project Impacts
Agriculture Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.1-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-01 Agriculture Resources.doc
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
5.2 - Air Quality
5.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes the setting and potential air quality impacts of the proposed project.
Specifically, it focuses on the relationship between topography and climate, discusses federal and
state ambient air quality standards and existing air quality conditions in the project area, describes the
overall regulatory framework for air quality management in California and the region, and identifies
sensitive receptors in the project area. This section then identifies the potential air quality impacts of
the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-
significant levels. This analysis is based on the following: Air Quality Assessment, WZI Inc., July
2006. The complete report is contained in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
5.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Climate and Meteorology
The proposed project site is located in Kern County, and lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
(SJVAB). The SJVAB includes a portion of Kern County and all of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced,
Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues throughout the 8-county San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. It administers air quality regulations developed at the federal, state, and local
levels. Federal, state, and local air quality regulations applicable to the proposed project are
described below.
The SJVAB, which is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide, is the second largest
air basin in the state. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000-
14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the
Tehachapi Mountains in the south (6,000-8,000 feet in elevation). The topography of the air basin
includes foothills and mountain ranges to the east, west and south, and a relatively flat valley floor
with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The topography of the project site is relatively flat
and the elevation change across the site is approximately 10 to 15 feet with a slight downhill slope to
the southwest. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-
Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV), thus, could be
considered a “bowl” open only to the north.
The SJVAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The
valley floor experiences warm, dry summers and cool, wet, winters. Summer high temperatures often
exceed 100°F, averaging in the low 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south. In the entire
SJV, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95°F. Over the last 30 years, the SJV
averaged 106 days a year at 90°F or hotter, and 40 days a year at 100°F or hotter. The daily summer
temperature variation can be as high as 30°F.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
In winter, as the cyclonic storm track moves southward, the storm systems moving in from the Pacific
Ocean bring a maritime influence to the SJV. The high mountains to the east prevent the cold,
continental air masses of the interior from influencing the valley. Winters are mild and humid.
Temperatures below freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but
highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily
low temperature is 45°F.
Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the region’s
topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. The Coastal Range hinders
wind access into the SJV from the west, the Tehachapis prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the
high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in
weak airflow, which becomes blocked vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJV. As a
result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding
mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet).
Air Pollutants
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria
pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon dioxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and lead. Ozone and PM10 are
generally considered to be “regional” pollutants, as these pollutants or their precursors affect air
quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are considered to be “local”
pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM10 is considered to be a localized pollutant as
well as a regional pollutant. In the area where the proposed project is located, PM10 and ozone are of
particular concern. The following is a summary of the characteristics of the primary and secondary
criteria pollutants, as well as other air pollutants, and the physical and health effects associated with
the pollutants.
Ozone (O3)
Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the
troposphere, where ground level or “bad” ozone is an air pollutant that damages human health,
vegetation, and many common materials. It is the key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere
extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The
stratosphere or “good” ozone layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on
earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).
“Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical air pollutant and makes up 90 percent of the group
of pollutants known as photochemical oxidants. It is generated over a large area and is transported
and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constitute of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control,
and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the
air by specific sources, but is formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone is
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants, called precursors, specifically oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).
Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands.
The ozone precursors, ROG and NOx, are emitted by mobile sources and by stationary combustion
equipment. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and
combustion products of various fuels. Originating from gas stations, large industrial facilities, and
small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take
place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it
is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Because photochemical reaction rates
depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air
pollution problem.
Health Effects
Ground level ozone is a pungent, colorless toxic gas. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant
that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation
and other materials. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by
exposure to high ozone levels. Specifically, ozone is a severe eye, nose, and throat irritant. Ozone
causes extensive damage to ecosystems, forests and plants by leaf discoloration and cell damage.
Ozone also damages agricultural crops and some man-made materials, such as synthetic rubber,
textiles, plants, plastics (Kern County, 2004) and other materials. Societal costs from ozone damage
include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of
industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete
combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle
exhaust, which contributes more than two-thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities,
automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95% of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in
high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. High CO levels
develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground
level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions
result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission
rates at low air temperatures. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel
combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall downward trend in
concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO. CO
is essentially inert to plants and materials but can have significant effects on human health.
Health Effects
CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO enters the bloodstream and
binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood, thus
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those
who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected, but only at higher
levels of exposure. Carbon monoxide binds strongly to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in
blood, and thus reduces the blood’s capacity for carrying oxygen to the heart, brain, and other parts of
the body. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, and
can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment,
reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing
complex tasks, and death.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air. Some
particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be
detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can
include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when gases emitted
from motor vehicles and industrial sources undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM10
refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 refers to particles
less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and are a subset, or portion of PM10.
In the Western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. PM10 and PM2.5
are emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles,
power plants, industrial processing, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, wildfires, dust from roads,
construction, landfills, and agriculture activities, fugitive windblown dust, and secondary aerosols
formed by combustion reactions in the atmosphere and photochemical actions of pollutants in the
atmosphere. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical
compositions vary widely.
Health Effects
PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough - about 1/7th the thickness of a human hair - to be inhaled
into, and lodge in, the deepest parts of the lung, evading the respiratory system’s natural defenses.
Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects
associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart
and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality
studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily
concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Non health-related effects include reduced visibility
and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or
aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. PM10
and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease, and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.
Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially
vulnerable to adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the
elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Of greatest concern are recent studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who
already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade
materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are formed from nitrogen and oxygen at high combustion temperatures and
further react to form other oxides of nitrogen such as nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide reacts with
ultraviolet light to initiate reactions producing photochemical smog, and it reacts in air to form nitrate
particulates. Nitrogen oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the
formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from
the use of solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally
from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A
brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric
acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates. Nitrogen dioxide significantly affects visibility.
Health Effects
NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The effects of short-term exposure are still unclear, but continued or frequent exposure to
concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may cause
increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Health effects associated with NOx are an
increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation.
Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary
dysfunction. NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon,
and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair
visibility. NOx is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of
environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs
when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water,
producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life.
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOx), formed
primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (mainly coal and oil), and during metal
smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates which significantly
reduce visibility.
Health Effects
The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx include effects on
breathing, respiratory illness, alterations in pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing
cardiovascular disease. High sulfur dioxide concentrations irritate the upper respiratory tract, while
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
low concentrations of sulfur dioxide injure lung tissues. Major subgroups of the population that are
most sensitive to SOx include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as
bronchitis or emphysema) as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOx also can damage the
foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx and NOx are the major precursors to acid rain,
which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and accelerated corrosion of buildings
and monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly reduce visibility.
SOx is a precursor to particulate matter formation, which is non-attainment in the project area.
Lead
Lead is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created
nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until recently to
increase the octane rating in auto fuel. Since gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major
source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels and the use of leaded fuel has been mostly
phased out, the ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.
Health Effects
Short-term exposure to high levels of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, coma or even
death. However, even small amounts of lead can be harmful, especially to infants, young children
and pregnant women. Symptoms of long-term exposure to lower lead levels may be less noticeable
but are still serious. Anemia is common and damage to the nervous system may cause impaired
mental function. Other symptoms are appetite loss, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue,
sleeplessness, irritability and headache. Continued excessive exposure, as in an industrial setting, can
affect the kidneys.
Lead exposure is most serious for young children because they absorb lead more easily than adults
and are more susceptible to its harmful effects. Even low-level exposure may harm the intellectual
development, behavior, size and hearing of infants. During pregnancy, especially in the last trimester,
lead can cross the placenta and affect the fetus. Female workers exposed to high levels of lead have
more miscarriages and stillbirths.
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several
subsets of organic gases including Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB). Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations.
VOCs are similar to ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal
law. The list of compounds exempt from the definition of VOC is included by the District and is
presented in District Rule 1102. VOCs are therefore a set of organic gases based on federal rules and
regulations. Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or
other carbon-based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum
fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. Hydrocarbon reacts in the atmosphere to form
photochemical smog. Hydrocarbon levels can affect plant growth. Both ROG and VOC terminology
will be used in this analysis.
Health Effects
The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health
effects. High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing
the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons are
considered Toxic Air Contaminants, or air toxics. There are no health standards for ROG separately.
In addition, some compounds that make up ROG are also toxic. An example is benzene, which is a
carcinogen.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant is “an
air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” In addition, 189
substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412
of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the state’s air toxics program pursuant to
Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code. The Toxic Air Contaminants which may
be emitted by the proposed facility are discussed under Impact 5.2-4 - Project Specific Public
Health/Hazards Impacts (Sensitive Receptors).
Health Effects
The TACS can cause various cancers depending on the particular chemicals, type and duration of
exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause short-term and/or long-term health effects.
The ten TACs posing the greatest health risk in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride,
perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter. A description of these pollutants, their sources and
health effects are contained in “ARB Almanac, Chapter 5: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions, Air
Quality and Health Risk” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. Health risk
guidelines are developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association for the list of
chemicals regulated as toxic.
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride monomer is a sweet smelling, colorless gas at ambient temperature. Landfills,
publicly owned treatment works and PVC production are the major identified sources of vinyl
chloride emissions in California. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be fabricated into several products
such as PVC pipes, pipefittings, and plastics.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Health Effects
In humans, epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride
exposure to development of a rare cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a relationship
between exposure and lung and brain cancers.
Regulatory Setting
Regulatory oversight for air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is depicted in
“Monitoring Stations Locations” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR,
rests at the regional level with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(District), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region IX office at the federal level.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the federal level is the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in
particular the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing these
standards. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered
the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, over a given averaging
period with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. Averaging periods
vary by pollutant and range from 1-hour standards to annual standards. Units of measure for the
standards are in parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3), and
micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3). The criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 is a form of NOx), sulfur oxides (SO2 is a form of SOx), particulate
matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) and lead. The U.S.
EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters
(outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government,
such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking.
Based on monitoring data recorded throughout the country, the U.S. EPA identifies airsheds that are
achieving the NAAQS and designates them as being in attainment. Other regions may also be
designated as non-attainment or unclassified based on available data and because they have levels
above the NAAQS. Areas designated non-attainment are further defined by classifications ranging
from sub-marginal to extreme. The year in which the attainment is reached determines the non-
attainment classification (i.e., serious, severe, and extreme). Each specific classification has defined
time periods for reaching attainment and various sanctions for failure to make progress. The San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated by the U.S. EPA as serious non-attainment for the 8-hour
standard, and as a serious non-attainment area for PM10. Attainment defines the status of a given air
shed with regard to NAAQS requirements. Airsheds not meeting these standards are classified as
“non-attainment”.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board, (CARB), a department of the California Environmental
Protection Agency, oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily
responsible for ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA), responding to the Federal CAA requirements, and for regulating emissions from motor
vehicles sold in California and for various types of equipment available commercially. It also sets
fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
The amendments to the CCAA establish ambient air quality standards for the state, California
Ambient Air Quality Standards, (CAAQS), and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the
earliest practicable date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the Federal CAA,
and also include sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. They are also more stringent
than the Federal standards and, in the case of PM10, far more stringent.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for the state standards for
ozone and PM10. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state standards.
CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The Air
Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987
as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. The Act,
as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of
certain substances their facilities routinely release into the air basin. The goal of the act is to collect
emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby
residents of significant risks, and to reduce the potential health risk to below a level of significance.
Owners of facilities found to pose significant risks by an air district must prepare and implement risk
reduction audit plans within 6 months of the determination. Each air pollution control district ranks
the data for purposes of risk assessment into high, intermediate, and low priority categories. When
considering the ranking, the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released
from the facility, and the proximity of the facility to receptors, are given consideration by an air
district.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Air districts have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than
emissions directly from motor vehicles, which are the responsibility of the CARB and the U. S. EPA.
Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality
standards and enforce applicable state and federal law.
State law recognized that air pollution does not respect political boundaries and therefore required
CARB to divide the state into separate air basins that each have similar geographical and
meteorological conditions [California Health and Safety Code section 39606 (a)]. Originally, air
pollution was regulated separately by county Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). Although this
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
is still the practice in most counties in California, many county agencies began to realize that air
quality problems are best managed on a regional basis and began to combine their regulatory agencies
into regional agencies. This was the case for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, where until 1991
each county operated a local APCD, at that time the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, (currently named San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District), was formed.
“Monitoring Station Locations” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR
delineates the legal boundaries of the district. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
has jurisdiction in eight counties located in the San Joaquin Valley, including the Bakersfield area.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Environmental Review Guidelines state that CEQA
applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
In August of 1998, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, (“the District”) prepared its
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). GAMAQI is an advisory
document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance
and uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. Local jurisdictions
are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that
the District uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It
recommends thresholds for use in determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse
environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and
identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. An update of the
GAMAQI was approved on January 10, 2002 and was used as a guidance document for the Air
Quality Assessment prepared for the West Ming Specific Plan project.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations contain several rules
which may apply to the proposed project. The following is a summary of such Rules and Regulations
(see Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR for more detailed descriptions).
Regulation II (Permits) - Regulation II (Rules 2010-2550) is a series of rules
covering permitting requirements within the air basin. SJVAPCD regulations require
any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which
emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to construct or a
Permit to Operate. Most new stationary sources, if they emit over 2 pounds of
pollutants per day, will be subject to Best Available Control Technology in
accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR) Rule and to the New
Source Review Rule.
Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) - Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081)
is a series of rules designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt)
generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track
out, etc.
Rule 3135 (Dust Control Plan Fee) requires the applicant to submit a fee in addition
to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover the District’s cost for
reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections.
Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) In the event
that any portion of an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or
removed, the project will be subject to District Rule 4002. Prior to any demolition
activity, an asbestos survey of existing structures on the project site may be required
to identify the presence of any asbestos containing building material (ACBM). Any
identified ACBM having the potential for disturbance must be removed by a certified
asbestos contractor in accordance with CAL-OSHA requirements.
Rule 4102 (Nuisance) applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air
contaminants or other materials. In the event that the project or construction of the
project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to District
enforcement action.
Rule 4103 (Open Burning) regulates the use of open burning and specifies the types
of materials that may be open burned.
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) limits volatile organic compounds from
architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, clean up and
labeling requirements.
Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance
Operations) if asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of this project will
be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback
asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance
operations.
Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) limits PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions from residential development. Construction plans for residential
developments may be affected by section 5.3 of this rule.
Rule 4902 (Residential Water Heaters) limits emissions of NOx from residential
developments.
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requires the applicants of certain development
projects to submit an application to the District when applying for the development’s
last discretionary approval. The ISR rule becomes effective March 1, 2006. Projects
that have not received a final discretionary approval by March 1, 2006 must submit
an ISR application by March 31, 2006. With the adoption of District Rule 9510
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
(Indirect Source Review) on December 15, 2005, the District will be requiring
projects subject to the rule to quantify indirect, area source, and construction exhaust
emissions and to mitigate a portion of these emissions.
In the context of toxic air contaminants, to meet the requirements of Federal and State law, the
District has created an Integrated Air Toxic Program. This program serves as a tool for
implementation of the requirements outlined in Title III of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments. The goals of District risk management efforts are to: 1) minimize increases in toxic
emissions associated with new and modified sources of air pollution; and 2) ensure that new and
modified sources of air pollution do not pose unacceptable health risks at nearby residences and
businesses. In order to achieve these goals, the District reviews the risk associated with each
permitting action where there is an increase in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants. Under the
District’s risk management policy, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) must be applied to all
units that, based on their potential emissions may pose greater than de minimum risks. Facilities that
pose health risks above District action levels are required to submit plans to reduce their risk. Action
levels for risk were established in the District’s Board-Approved Risk Reduction policy.
The District has an extensive stationary source permitting program that includes New Source Review
Rules, which are in the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules require offsets of
emissions of ozone and particulates precursors at a ratio of greater than one to one, when ten tons and
fifteen tons are exceeded. The rules also require that each new stationary source, which exceeds two
pounds per day of pollutants, shall install Best Available Control Technology.
Regional Ambient Air Quality
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ambient air quality standards are regulatory levels of ambient pollutant concentrations which, when
exceeded, may adversely impact the health and welfare of the public. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) were established as a result of the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 1970. The national standards are divided into primary standards, designed to protect public
health, and secondary standards intended to protect the public from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant. The national standards may be equaled continuously and exceeded once per
year. National standards have been established for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter less than 10 microns, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, sulfur dioxide, and
lead.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 as a result of the
Mulford-Carrell Act. In addition to the national standards, California also established standards for
visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. California standards for
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic
diameter, and sulfur dioxide are not to be exceeded. The pollutants and their corresponding national
and state ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 5.2-1 below.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards¹
Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards
Ozone (O3) 1 Hour
8 Hour
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm*
0.12 ppm
0.08 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour
8 Hour
220 ppm
9.0 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1 Hour
Mean
0.25 ppm
-
-
0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 Hour
3 hour
24 Hour
Mean
0.25 ppm
-
0.04 ppm
-
-
0.5 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.030 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour
Mean
50 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour
Mean
-
12 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 -
Lead 30-day
Quarter
1.5 µg/m3
-
-
1.5 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm -
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm -
Visibility Reducing
Particles
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 kilometer - visibility of
ten miles or more due to particles when relative
humidity is less than 70%
-
¹ California Air Resources Board.
* Approved by CARB on 4/28/05, will become effective in early 2006.
Abbreviations: ppm = parts per million (concentration); µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter;
Mean = Annual Arithmetic Mean; 30-day = 30-day average; Quarter = Calendar quarter
Source: WZI, Inc., June, 2006.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments made in 1977 require each state to identify
geographic areas in compliance with the national standards as well as those areas that are not in
compliance. Areas meeting the national standards are referred to as “attainment” status and are
subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and NSR regulations. Areas not in
compliance with the national standards are termed “non-attainment” and are subject to New Source
Review (NSR) regulations. Areas with insufficient data to make a determination are “unclassified”
but are treated as “attainment” areas until proven otherwise. The designation of an area is made on a
pollutant-specific basis. Therefore, it is possible to be located in an area designated non-attainment
for one pollutant, but attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. See Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR for more detailed descriptions of National and State Designation
Classifications.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Pursuant to the Federal CAA, States may develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to explain how
they will achieve the CAA standards within the state. If the SIP is deemed acceptable, the U.S. EPA
will delegate responsibility for implementation pursuant to the SIP. Accordingly, California has an
approved SIP. These implementation plans are updated and revised periodically based on changes in
conditions, and revision in standards.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) coordinates and oversees state air quality management
districts and air pollution control districts. The CAAQS are limits set by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) that cannot be equaled or exceeded as previously stated. An air pollution control
district must prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) if the standards are not met. CARB has
retained authority over mobile sources but has delegated much of the control of stationary sources to
local agencies. They, much like the federal program, designate areas as “attainment”, “non-
attainment”, or “unclassified” based on ambient air data that has been collected in the applicable area.
Table 5.2-2 below is a listing of the State and Federal attainment status for the Kern County portion
of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.
The California CAA requires that Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) be implemented for
controlling stationary and mobile source emissions in moderate non-attainment areas to help achieve
a mandated, 5-percent per year reduction in ozone precursors, and to reduce population exposures.
Table 5.2-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin - District Portion Attainment Status
Designation/Classification
Pollutant
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone - 1 hour¹ No Federal Standard Non-attainment/Severe
Ozone - 8 hour Non-attainment/ Serious No State Standard
PM10 Non-attainment/Serious Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment No State Standard
Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Particulates No Designation Attainment
Other Pollutants (H2S, SO4, visibility) No Federal Standards Attainment or Unclassified
¹ The federal Ozone - 1 hour standard has been replaced by the federal Ozone - 8 hour standard.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Existing Air Quality
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) operated four meteorological and air quality monitoring
stations near the West Ming Specific Plan project between the years 2003 and 2005. These stations
are located in Bakersfield, California. As previously stated, “Monitoring Stations Locations” of the
Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, shows the locations of the various local air
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
monitoring stations in the area surrounding the project. The closest air monitoring station to the
project site is the Bakersfield station on Golden State Highway. The station monitors particulates,
ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, total hydrocarbons, and methane. There are
also Bakersfield air monitoring stations located at 5558 California Avenue and 410 East Planz Road.
In addition, there is an air monitoring station located in Oildale.
For the purposes of background data and air quality assessment, this analysis will rely on data
collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are closest in proximity to the
proposed facility. Table 5.2-3 through Table 5.2-9 depict the background concentrations for the
following pollutants: aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
aerodynamic diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead
(Pb) as of May 2006. No data is available for Hydrogen Sulfide or Vinyl Chloride in Kern County or
other toxics air contaminants (TAC).
Table 5.2-3: Background Ambient Air Quality for Ozone
Number of Days
Exceeding 1-Hour
NAAQS (0.12 ppm)
Number of Days
Exceeding 1-Hour
CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Maximum 1-Hour
Concentration (ppm) CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 0 44 10 28 0.120 0.110 0.117
Bakersfield -
Golden St. Hwy. 0 0 0 35 6 7 0.120 0.104 0.110
Oildale 0 0 0 39 20 21 0.119 0.107 0.109
Source: WZI, Inc. (June, 2006).
Table 5.2-4: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM10
Days Exceeding
NAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean NAAQS
(µg/m3)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>50 µg/m3)
Maximum
Concentration
(µg/m3)
CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield
- California
Ave.
0 0 0 23.8 19.1 19.8 30 22 14 116 93 108
Bakersfield
- Golden St.
Hwy.
0 0 0 52.4 42.8 43.2 26 19 20 134 84 109
Oildale 0 0 0 42.8 42.0 41.1 21 17 14 106 82 107
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-5: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM2.5
Days Exceeding
NAAQS (65.5 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean NAAQS
(15 µg/m3)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>12 µg/m3)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration
(State) (µg/m3)
CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield
- Golden
State Hwy
1 1 4 19.7 18.2 19.1 - - - 67.8 66.6 83.6
Bakersfield
- 5558
California
0 3 5 17.2 18.9 18.0 - - - 84.5 72.8 102.1
Bakersfield
- 410 E.
Planz Road
0 0 3 17.9 17.5 19.9 - - - 51.9 59.5 77.5
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-6: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for CO
Days Exceeding NAAQS
(>9.0 ppm)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>9.0 ppm)
Maximum 8-Hour
Concentration NAAQS
(9.0 ppm) CAAQS
(9.0 ppm)
CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.29 1.83 2.20
Bakersfield - Golden
St. Hwy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.06 2.60 2.10
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-7: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for NOx
Annual Average (ppm) Days Exceeding
CAAQS (0.25 ppm)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration CAAQS
(0.25 ppm) CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0.020 0.019 0.018 0 0 0 0.085 0.083 0.074
Bakersfield - Golden
St. Hwy. 0.023 - .021 0 0 0 0.083 0.080 0.078
Oildale 0.013 0.010 0.011 0 0 0 0.085 0.046 0.063
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-8: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for SOx
Days Exceeding
CAAQS 24-hour
Standard (>0.04 ppm)
Annual Average
NAAQS (0.030 ppm)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration NAAQS
(0.14 ppm) CAAQS
(0.04 ppm)
CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2000 2001* 2002 2000 2001* 2002 2000 2001* 2002
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 - 0.003 0.002 - 0.003 0.005 -
* = Most recent data available, no data available for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-9: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for Lead
Days Exceeding
CAAQS 30-Day
Standard (>1.5 µg/m3)
Calendar Quarter
NAAQS (1.5 µg/m3)
Maximum 30-Day
Concentration NAAQS
(1.5 µg/m3) CAAQS
(1.5 µg/m3)
CARB
Air
Monitoring
Station
2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 - - 0 - - 0.017 - -
No data available for 2005
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. (June, 2006).
The plots of the various pollutants verses time are included in the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR. The trends were analyzed utilizing a least squares fit technique.
Based on these plots, it is clearly demonstrated that the air quality in the area surrounding the
proposed project site has improved during the time period for which data has been collected. The
least squares fit analysis indicates that the 1 hour - Ozone has decreased 21.8%, 8 hour - Ozone has
decreased 10.4%, and PM10 has decreased 30.4%. CO, NOx, and SOx have decreased to the point
where they are in attainment consistently, and PM2.5, which has only been monitored recently, has
decreased 44.3% in 5 years. The Federal Clean Air Act also requires that emission inventories be
complied and reported through a Conformity Analysis with the State Implementation Plan.
Existing Conditions at Project Site
The project site is located in and adjacent to Bakersfield. No onsite data exists for criteria pollutants
or toxics. However, using the highest background concentration from the surrounding monitors over
the last three years will conservatively represent the background concentrations at the site.
Existing Agricultural Source Emissions
The proposed project is located on land that is currently being used for agriculture. With the
implementation of the proposed land uses, the agricultural uses within the project area will cease, thus
eliminating the emissions from those sources. The project site has been and is under cultivation with
carrots, garlic, potatoes, and corn silage. Construction of the proposed development will ultimately
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
remove approximately 1,925 acres of agricultural lands from cultivation. Existing sources of air
pollutant emissions include agricultural equipment, land preparation, fugitive wind-blown dust, crop
harvesting, unpaved farm roads, and work areas.
PM10 emissions from fugitive dust are released into the atmosphere during land preparation prior to
planting and after harvesting activities. Agricultural activities at the site are estimated to generate
approximately 39.42 tons per year of ROG emissions, 28.22 tons per year of NOx emissions, and
43.28 tons per year of PM10 emissions as shown below in Table 5.2-10.
Table 5.2-10: Emissions from Existing Project Site Agricultural Operations
Activity ROG
(ton/yr)
NOx
(ton/yr)
CO
(ton/yr)
SOx
(ton/yr)
PM10
(ton/yr)
PM2.5
(1)
(ton/yr)
Agricultural Equipment Exhaust
-Water wells(2)
-Tractors
6.04 0.44 24.58
3.64
34.24
2.98 0.85 0.05 1.69 0.17 1.69 0.17
Fugitive Dust(3) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Land Preparation(4a)
Wind-blown Dust(4b) 15.82
Harvesting(4c) 16.67 6.33 6.67
Unpaved Roads(4d) 0.51 8.42 0.16 1.26
Volatile Pesticide Emissions 32.94 -- -- -- -- --
Total 39.42 28.22 37.22 0.90 43.28 16.28
ROG = Reactive organic gases
PM10, 2.5 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 or 2.5 microns in diameter, respectively
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SOx = Sulfur oxides
(1) PM2.5 fractions as percentage of PM10 from AP-42 as follows: 100% for combustion sources (Section 3.3, Table 3.3-
1, EPA, October, 1996); 40% for miscellaneous sources (Section 13.2.5, EPA, January, 1995); 15% for unpaved
roads (Section 13.2.2, Table 13.2.2-2, EPA, September, 1998).
(2) Emissions from agricultural non-road diesel equipment were calculated using Tier 1-2-3 Emission Standards from
EPA, Department of Air and Radiation, “Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components”, May 2003,
EPA420-P-03-002.
(3) Fugitive dust emissions were calculated for the existing 1,925-acre project site based on emission factors and
methodologies in the Emission Inventory Procedure Manual, Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions (CARB,
1997), as follows:
(4)(a) Land preparation emission factor developed from emissions data for Kern County and crop-specific data presented
in Table 1 of Section 7.4 (Agricultural Land Preparation), 2003.
(b) Wind-blown dust emission factor is for non-pasture agricultural lands in Kern County, from Section 7.12 (Wind-
Blown Dust - Agricultural Lands), Attachment A, July, 1999.
(c) Harvesting emission factor is for cotton harvesting in California, from Section 7.5 (Agricultural Harvest Operations),
August, 1997.
(d) CARB default values used per Section 7.11 (Unpaved Road Dust, Farm Roads), August, 1997.
Source: WZI, Inc, June 2006.
The emissions from the existing agricultural operations will be subtracted from the proposed project
emissions since they will be phased out as the project is developed.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Sensitive Receptors
The District identifies a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children,
senior citizens, and sick persons, are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of
continuous human exposure to pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality
standards, such as 24-hour, 8-hour or 1-hour. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences,
hospitals, and schools. Industrial and commercial uses are not considered sensitive receptors.
The proposed Specific Plan includes zoning that is expected to result in the construction of sensitive
receptors (schools) on the site. The current sensitive receptors that are nearest to the project site
include the following:
• Stockdale High School - located immediately to the northwest adjacent to the project boundary.
• Warren Junior High School - located approximately 0.6 mile to the east of the project
boundary.
• Other possible sensitive receptors that are nearest to the project site include the following:
• Mercy Southwest Hospital - located approximately 1.75 miles to the northeast of the project
boundary.
• Residences - located immediately to the east adjacent to the project boundary as well as 0.5
mile to the north of the project boundary.
A visual observation of the oil production operations within the project boundaries was made on
March 5, 2005 and March 22, 2006, which disclosed five oil production tank settings. Three of these
facilities are active oil treatment facilities. One is an active wastewater facility and one is an idle
wastewater facility. The facility near the southwest corner of Section 13 (Township 30 South, Range
26 East, MDB&M) services oil, water, and gas production from the oil wells within Section 13, and is
also the largest facility within the project boundary.
This facility contained the following equipment:
• 1 crude oil tank with an approximate capacity of 3,000 barrels;
• 3 crude oil tanks with an approximate capacity of 2,000 barrels each; and
• 1 crude oil tank with an approximate capacity of 1,500 barrels each.
Toxic emissions were conservatively estimated by WZI based on typical oilfield operations and
emission estimating techniques developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(“the District”). The total amount of estimated toxic emissions was entered into a spreadsheet
developed by the District to calculate a priority score used to evaluate facilities subject to California’s
Toxic Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. The District requires facilities with a
priority score greater than 10.0 to prepare heath risk assessments. The resulting priority score for this
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
facility was between 1.0 and 10.0. A score between 1.0 and 10.0 is considered a medium priority and
is not considered a significant source of toxic emissions.
The visual observation of the oil production operations within a one-mile radius of the project
boundaries was made on March 5, 2005 and March 22, 2006 also disclosed five additional oil
production tank settings. Toxic emissions were estimated for the five other production facilities. The
total amount of calculated toxic emissions for each facility was entered into a spreadsheet developed
by the District to calculate a priority score. The resulting cumulative priority score for these facilities
was between 1.0 and 10.0 (medium priority).
5.2.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• 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)(This evaluation is provided in Section 6);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The significant criteria listed below contain emission thresholds that are applicable to and included in
the CEQA Guidelines as described above. These additional thresholds are listed in this section for the
purpose of further establishing a threshold criteria to which impacts can be fully analyzed. These
noteworthy thresholds are contained in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
(GAMAQI) produced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
in 2002. According to the District, impacts would be significant if the project would:
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
• Produce greater than 10 tons/year ROG;
• Produce greater than 10 tons/year NOx;
• Produce greater than 15 tons/year PM10 (according to Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C
of this Draft EIR);
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
• Exceed National or California Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO (9 ppm 8-hr average; 20
ppm 1-hr average); or
• Not comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control’s Regulation VIII regarding
particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Compliance with District Regulation
VIII and local zoning code, and implementation of all other control measures (BACMs)
indicated in GAMAQI, will reduce particulate emission impacts to levels that are considered
less-than-significant by the SJVUAPCD.
5.2.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate.
Models Used in Analysis
Table 5.2-11 below shows which models are used in the General Operational Thresholds, the
pollutants to which they apply and the standards to which the model results will be compared for
significance determination. These models were selected in conformance with U. S. EPA and District
guidelines. The same thresholds are utilized for construction and operational emissions or
combinations thereof.
Table 5.2-11: Standards Utilized for General Thresholds of Significance
Threshold of Significance Pollutant(s) Standards Modeling Technique
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
U.S. EPA’s Prevention of
Significance - Significant
Impact Levels (PSD SIL’s) for
onsite sources, GAMAQI for
indirect sources
CO NAAQS, CAAQA
U.S. EPA’s Industrial
Source Complex Short
Term Version 3
(ISCST 3)/AERMOD,
Caline 4, URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite, GAMAQI for
indirect
URBEMIS
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable
air quality plan
Visibility Air Quality Related Values
(AQRV’s)
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-11 (Cont.): Standards Utilized for General Thresholds of Significance
Threshold of Significance Pollutant(s) Standards Modeling Technique
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Caline
URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect,
Kern
URBEMIS
Violate any ambient air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation
Visibility AQRV’s
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN,
ISCST
3/AERMOD
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Caline 4
URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
URBEMIS
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
threshold for ozone
precursors) Visibility AQRV’s U.S. EPA VISCREEN,
ISCST 3/AERMOD
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s ISCST 3
Caline 4
URBEMIS
Ozone
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI
URBEMIS
Air Toxics 10 x 10-6 excess cancer risk
1.0 non cancer health risk HARP
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations
Visibility AQRV’s
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN,
ISCST 3
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number
of people
SOx, H2S
PSD SL’s, NAAQS, CAAQS,
odor thresholds, GAMAQI
(odor complaints)
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST
3/ERMOD
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-12 below indicates the various models used in the impact analysis and their respective units
of measure. The following models and guidelines listed in Table 5.2-12 were used as tools to create
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
the analytical basis for the impact analysis. Each model is used specifically to analyze either: 1)
project specific impacts, 2) modeled cumulative impacts, or 3) regional impacts. Some results are
reported in concentration by species; some provide data in mass per unit time; some provide
probability of occurrences per million persons and some provide data in the form of household or
employment over specified periods of time. For a detailed description of each air model utilized for
the project, see Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-12: Models used in Impact Analysis
Model Project Specific Public
Health/Hazards Cumulative Area of Model
Impact
ISCST3 (µg/m3) Criteria
Pollutants
see ACE2588,
Odor Surrogate,
Visibility Impacts
(µg/m3) Criteria
Pollutants
Six mile radius
model limitation,
Impacts are
assessed at
maximum point of
impact
VISCREEN Index of
Perceptibility Any Class I within
100 km
HARP Lbs/hr, lbs/yr
Cancer
risk/million,
Hazards Index
Maximum point of
impact is assumed
to be the location
of Sensitive
Receptor
CALINE 4 (µg/m3) CO (µg/m3) CO (µg/m3) CO Areas adjacent to
roadways
URBEMIS 2002
Version 8.7
Construction
tons/year Onsite
Construction
URBEMIS 2002
Version 8.7
Operational
tons/year tons/year
Unitized Airshed
for identified
projects
Kern COG
Conformity
Analysis
Households/period
Employment/period Households/period
Employment/period
Regional/Basin
Wide for all
projects in SIP
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan
Impact 5.2.A: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Management Plan.
The California Clean Air Act requires non-attainment districts with severe air quality problems to
provide for a 5 percent reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The District regulates air
quality in the Bakersfield area and is responsible for overseeing efforts to improve air quality within
the San Joaquin Valley. The District prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The Plan requires best available
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
retrofit technology on specific types of stationary sources to reduce emissions. The California Clean
Air Act and the Air Quality Attainment Plan also identify transportation control measures as methods
of reducing emissions from mobile sources. The California Clean Air Act defines transportation
control measures as “any strategy to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, and
vehicle idling or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions.” The Air
Quality Attainment Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin identifies the provisions to
accommodate the use of bicycles, public transportation, and traffic flow improvements as
transportation control measures.
The Air Quality Attainment Plan recognized growth of the population and economy within the air
basin. The Plan predicted the workforce in Kern County to increase along with a 2.2 percent
population increase annually from 2002 to 2030 (i.e., 62% total increase uncompounded for 28
years).
According to Air Quality Assessment, the future growth of the population and economy associated
with the proposed West Ming Specific Plan and the cumulative projects within the area were included
and are in conformance with the regional growth projections (through the year 2030) that were used
in preparing the Air Quality Attainment Plan. The Air Quality Assessment determined that the
population and employment estimates associated with the existing dwelling units along with the
proposed project and other cumulative projects are less than the Kern COG projected population and
employment estimates through the year 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. Refer to the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR for a more
detailed discussion of these projections corresponding to regional households (population) and
regional jobs (economy).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Air Quality Standards
Impact 5.2.B: The construction of the project may potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction Emissions Quantification
During the period of construction activity, onsite stationary sources, heavy-duty construction
vehicles, construction worker vehicles, energy use and asphalt paving would generate emissions. In
addition, fugitive dust would be generated by grading and construction activities. Other aspects of the
individual building projects could include architectural coatings applied to the proposed land uses as
well as mobile emissions from workers arriving and leaving the construction site.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Short-term impacts from the project will primarily result in fugitive particulate matter emissions
during construction. Grading, excavation, trenching, filling, and other construction activities result in
increased dust emissions. Regulation VIII of the District specifies control measures for specified
outdoor sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions. Rule 8011 contains administrative
requirements, Rule 8021 applies to construction activities, and Rule 8071 applies to vehicle and
equipment parking, fueling, and service areas. The District does not require a permit for these
activities, but does impose measures to control fugitive dust, such as the application of water or a
chemical dust suppressant.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality
Impacts (GAMAQI), does not necessarily require a quantification of construction emissions for all
projects. Quantification is generally only required at the request of the Lead Agency. In general, the
District assumes that implementation of these measures will bring the construction impacts to a level
considered less than significant. However, for this project, the construction emissions were
quantified.
The proposed project would develop over time as individual uses are constructed on parcels within
the Specific Plan. Initially, rough grading would be conducted to establish the portion of fixed
roadways and install the minimum infrastructure necessary to support each use constructed in the
buildout of the Specific Plan. Subsequently, fine grading would occur on individual development
parcels to allow construction of a proposed use. This process will be repeated as new areas are
developed. Although there is no definitive phasing plan for the project area, buildout of the proposed
uses is estimated, based on market and demographic factors for the year 2027. Based on this
scenario, construction activities would continuously occur during the buildout period. During
construction, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker
vehicles, energy use and asphalt paving would generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would
be generated by grading and construction activities. Other aspects of the individual building projects
could include architectural coatings applied to the proposed land uses as well as mobile emissions
from workers arriving and leaving the construction site.
Onsite grading and construction activities are assumed to utilize diesel construction equipment.
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on U.S. EPA AP-42
emissions factors and were obtained from the URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 program defaults.
Exhaust emissions will vary substantially from day to day. Numerous variables factored into
estimating total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period,
number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of
construction personnel, and amounts of materials to be transported onsite or offsite. For example,
assuming 10 dozers operate six hours per day, 250 days per year, construction equipment exhaust
would generate approximately 1.43 tons of ROG, 31.3 tons of NOx, 1.3 tons of PM10, and 2.6 tons of
SOx per year. Additional exhaust emissions would be associated with the transport of workers and
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
materials. The proposed project is a Specific Plan and the specific mix of construction equipment
needed for future development is not presently known.
Using the emissions rates from URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 and the construction timetables and
equipment lists provided in “URBEMIS 2002 Construction Emissions Quantification and
Construction Schedule” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, the
construction emissions for the total project were quantified. The buildout of the residential projects
are expected to be relatively uniform over the twenty-year buildout period. The buildout of the
commercial and industrial project phases are expected to occur during the earlier years of the buildout
period, and the school projects are expected to take place over approximately the first ten years of the
buildout period. These assumptions for commercial, industrial, and school uses on the site would
represent a worst-case development scenario. This approach provides for higher operational
emissions impact for mitigation purposes and allows some flexibility during actual construction. Per
standard changes issued by the SJVAPCD, the architectural coating emission factors were changed
for compliance with District factors. Table 5.4-1 in the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this
Draft EIR shows the mitigated construction emissions for each year during the construction period.
The maximum ROG emissions are estimated at 15.75 tons per year and the maximum NOx emissions
are estimated at 34.67 tons per year. These emissions are projected to occur in the first construction
year of 2007; furthermore, these emissions are temporary in nature and will cease once the project has
been built out.
The Bakersfield area and the San Joaquin Valley are designated non-attainment for particulates for
both state and federal standards. Although the proposed land uses are not considered a potential
source for significant particulate emissions, fugitive particulate emissions will occur during
construction. Construction activity has the potential to generate 10 pounds of PM10 per acre per day
of activity. The proposed project covers approximately 2,181 acres. Fugitive construction emissions
have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. The application of water, or other dust
suppressant, could significantly reduce emissions. Doubling the moisture content could reduce
emissions on unpaved roads by 75 percent and use of a chemical dust suppressant on storage piles
could reduce emissions by approximately 90 percent. Assuming that the application of water controls
emissions by 50 percent, fugitive PM10 emissions, during construction, may be reduced to 5 pounds
per acre per day of activity. Actual emissions will depend on the level of activity and the type of
control being used. Control measures are required and enforced by the District under Regulation
VIII. As stated in GAMAQI, the District guidance document, implementation of these control
measures will result in short-term emissions that are considered less than significant for particulate
matter. The following three rules related to fugitive dust control apply to this project, amongst others
(i.e., Rules 8011-8081):
Rule 8011 - Fugitive dust administrative requirements for control of fine particulate
matter.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Rule 8021 - Fugitive dust requirements for control of fine particulate matter from
construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and earthmoving activities.
Rule 8071 - Fugitive dust requirements for control of fine particulate matter from
vehicle and/or equipment parking, shipping, receiving, transfer, fueling and service
areas one acre or larger.
In addition, the ceasing of farming operations will result in a net decrease of PM10 emissions of
approximately 43.28 tons of per year.
Mitigation Measures
5.2.B.1 Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City
of Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District that all
construction activities and operations will comply with local zoning codes, and
District Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081) and implementation of all other control
measures (BACMs) as stated in GAMAQI.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant.
Impact 5.2.C: The operation of the project may potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The proposed project will have several operational sources of emissions and impacts. The impacts
from each phase are discussed in detail below.
Operational Emissions Quantification
The proposed project operational emissions would be generated by area sources, stationary sources,
and mobile sources as a result of normal day-to-day activities on the project site after occupation.
These emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heaters,
heavy-duty diesel truck idling onsite, and gas stations. Emissions would also be generated during the
operation of landscape maintenance equipment, emergency generation and from consumer products.
Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site,
including heavy-duty diesel trucks.
Area Source Emissions
Emissions resulting from project operation were estimated using a variety of sources including the
URBEMIS model along with generally accepted emission factors for certain stationary sources. The
area source emissions have been quantified utilizing the URBEMIS Version 8.7 computer model.
This model is a land use and transportation based computer model designed to estimate regional air
emissions from new development projects. While previous versions were only designed to estimate
emissions from motor vehicle trips, URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 can estimate emissions from such
sources as gas heaters, furnaces or blowers, and landscape maintenance equipment. The model
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
accounts for specific meteorological conditions and topography that characterize each specific air
basin in California.
Input into the model was obtained from traffic data provided by the project traffic engineer and
assumptions on the nature of land uses constructed within the Specific Plan. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that the Specific Plan built out to its maximum potential, including the
following land uses (or area sources): Residential, Light Industrial, General Commercial, and Public
Services (Schools).
Electricity and natural gas are utilized by almost every commercial and residential development. No
wood stove or fireplace emissions were considered. URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 default inputs were
used to generate the emissions for the area sources. The URBEMIS 2002 inputs and outputs are
provided in “Project Specific URBEMIS 2002 Inputs and Outputs” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Predicted project-related area source emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and SOx attributable to this
project in 2027 are summarized below:
• ROG: 72.59 tons/year
• NOx: 11.72 tons/year
• CO: 19.18 tons/year
• PM10: 0.06 tons/year
• SOx: 0.09 tons/year
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) in
excess of the threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons/year) will be considered to have a significant air quality
impact. As shown above, the ROG emissions are estimated at 72.59 tons per year and the NOx
emissions are estimated at 11.72 tons per year, each predicted to exceed the 10 tons/year threshold.
Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Indirect Source Emissions (Vehicular Emissions)
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan will result in increased vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley.
The vehicles associated with these trips will emit criteria pollutants including NOx and ROG, which
are considered ozone precursors. The Bakersfield area is a non-attainment area for federal air quality
standards for ozone and particulates. Nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases are regulated as
ozone precursors. A precursor is defined by the District as “a directly emitted air contaminant that,
when released into the atmosphere forms or causes to be formed or contributes to the formation of a
secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard has been adopted…”
The District regulates air quality in the Bakersfield area. The predicted emissions associated with
vehicular traffic (mobile sources) are not subject to the District’s permit requirements. However, the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
District is responsible for overseeing efforts to improve air quality within the San Joaquin Valley.
The District has prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into
compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
The District reviews land use changes to evaluate the potential impact on air quality. The District has
established a significance level for ROG and NOx of 10 tons per year each.
Vehicle emissions have been estimated for the year 2027, the projected completion date, using the
URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 computer model. URBEMIS 2002 predicts carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter emissions from motor vehicle
traffic associated with new or modified land uses. Trip generation rates were obtained from the
traffic study provided by McIntosh & Associates. The URBEMIS 2002 modeling results for the year
2027 are provided in “Project Specific URBEMIS 2002 Inputs and Outputs” of the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Project-related mobile source emissions for ROG, N, NOx Ox, CO, PM10 and SOx attributable to this
project in 2027 are summarized below:
• ROG: 38.88 tons/year
• NOx: 39.70 tons/year
• CO: 406.47 tons/year
• PM10: 81.40 tons/year
• SOx: 1.03 tons/year
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) in
excess of the threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air
quality impact. As shown above, the ROG emissions are estimated at 38.88 tons per year and the
NOx emissions are estimated at 39.70 tons per year, each predicted to exceed the 10 tons/year
threshold. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
In addition, according to Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, projects that
consist of indirect (mobile) sources that emit particulate matter (PM10) in excess of the threshold
levels (i.e., 15 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air quality impact. As shown
above, the PM10 emissions are estimated at 81.40 tons per year and predicted to exceed the 15 tons
per year threshold. Therefore, this is considered a significant impact.
Project Stationary Source Emissions
Although the actual stationary sources for the project are unknown, the Air Quality Assessment has
provided a representative list of land uses types for analysis of project stationary source emissions.
These representative land uses within the proposed Specific Plan include: two fuel dispensing
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
stations, a dry cleaner, a sit-down restaurant and two fast food restaurants. Predicted emissions are
provided below:
• Dry Cleaners: 4.84 tons/year of ROG
• Gas Station: 3.63 tons/year of ROG
• Restaurant: 0.45 tons/year of ROG and 0.61 tons/year of PM10
• Light Industrial: 10.00 tons/year of ROG
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG) in excess of the
threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air quality impact. As
shown above, the total ROG emissions are estimated at 18.92 tons per year and are predicted to
exceed the 10 tons/year threshold. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Over a million square feet of Light Industrial uses is also planned within the project boundaries. Area
source and indirect source emissions associated with Light Industrial uses have been calculated for
the project’s operational phase. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the Light
Industrial land use designation supports “unobtrusive industrial activities that can locate in close
proximity to residential and commercial uses with a minimum of environmental conflicts.”
URBEMIS identifies such activities as print plants, material testing labs, and assemblers of data
processing equipment, which employ fewer than 500 persons and tend to be free standing. Some of
these uses generate little if any criteria pollutant emissions above area and indirect source emissions.
However, uses associated with an industrial zoning would be subject to the District permitting process
if they emitted air pollutants. SJVAPCD Regulation II (Rules 2010-2550) require any person
constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may
reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate. Most new stationary
sources, if they emit over 2 pounds of pollutants per day, will be subject to Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR) Rule.
Therefore, for conservative reasons estimates of potential emissions from the proposed industrial
zoning have been made. As a part of the District permitting process, any emissions exceeding the
District’s offsetting thresholds would have to be offset back to the thresholds on a stationary source
by stationary source basis. Therefore, the maximum ozone precursor emissions that would not be
offset would be 10 tons per year of ROG and NOx per stationary source. This value is therefore
utilized for the unidentified industrial sources. Any amount over the ten tons would need to be offset
at a ratio of greater than one to one.
Accordingly, in context of District Regulation II, new stationary sources that emit over 2 pounds of
pollutants per day (or 0.365 tons per year) will be subject to BACT in accordance with the District’s
New Source Review (NSR) Rule. Therefore, given that the total PM10 emissions are estimated at
0.61 tons per year and predicted to exceed the threshold of 0.365 tons per year, new stationary
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
sources associated with the project will be subject to BACT in accordance with the District’s NSR
Rule.
The Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan states: “the use of offsets, as provided in Rule
2201, will ensure that permitted increases in major source emissions will not interfere with progress
towards attainment of federal 1 hour ozone standards or the achievement of the 3 percent per year
reduction in ozone precursor emissions...without taking credit for the ERCs (emission reduction
credits) required of and provided by new and modified stationary sources.” Additionally, the Plan
states that for the calendar years 2000-2003 the average offset ratio for all permitted actions was
slightly higher than 1.4 to 1 (or 1.4-1).
Total Project Emissions
The total emissions from the proposed project described in terms of operational emissions (area
source, indirect/mobile source emissions, and stationary source emissions) were summed from project
commencement to buildout to determine the year of maximum project emissions for the purpose of
mitigation. Notably, the existing agricultural emissions were deducted. Year 2027 (buildout)
represents the year in which maximum project-related emissions occur. The total project emissions
are shown below in Table 5.2-13. The intermediate years’ (2007-2026) operations emissions are
contained within the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-13: Total Project Emissions
Project ROG
(ton/yr) NOx (ton/yr) CO (ton/yr) PM¹10 (ton/yr) SOx (ton/yr)
Area Source
Emissions 72.59 11.72 19.18 0.06 0.09
Stationary
Source
Emissions²
18.92 10.00 -- 0.61 --
Indirect
(Mobile) Source
Emissions
38.88 39.70 406.47 81.40 1.03
Existing
Agricultural
Emissions³
-39.42 -28.22 -37.22 -43.28 -0.90
Total Project
Emissions 90.97 33.20 388.43 38.79 0.22
District
Significance
Threshold
(GAMAQI)
10 10 N/A 15 N/A
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-32 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-13 (Cont.): Total Project Emissions
Project ROG
(ton/yr) NOx (ton/yr) CO (ton/yr) PM¹10 (ton/yr) SOx (ton/yr)
Significant
Impact? Yes Yes No Yes No
¹ Includes PM 2.5 and sulfate fractions.
² Stationary source emissions for Criteria Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) are subject to New Source
Review (NSR).
³ Existing agricultural emissions are to be subtracted from the proposed project emissions since they will phased-out as
the project is developed.
-- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit air pollutants in excess of the threshold levels will be
considered to have a significant air quality impact. As shown in Table 5.2-13 above, the total ROG
and NOx emissions are each estimated to exceed the 10 tons per year threshold and the total PM10
emissions are estimated to exceed the 15 tons per year threshold. Therefore, these are considered
potentially significant impacts.
Stationary Source Impacts - Operational Phase
The West Ming Specific Plan project contains both stationary and mobile sources. This section
analyzes the localized (six-mile radius) criteria pollutant impacts of the stationary sources and five
tractor-trailers idling onsite.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been designated a non-attainment area for the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 and ozone. A quantitative modeling analysis was conducted
to address potential criteria pollutant impacts from the proposed project. The modeling approach
employed is consistent with Federal, State and District guidance for considering the impacts from
industrial facilities. Environmental transport of the project’s emissions was modeled using the
U.S.EPA Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) atmospheric dispersion model.
The ISCST3 model is appropriate for modeling the potential impacts of area sources in simple (i.e.,
flat) and complex (i.e., hilly) terrain. Regulatory default model control parameters were utilized for
this assessment.
The ISCST3 model was run using meteorological data obtained from Bakersfield, CA.
Criteria Pollutants
There are several potential sources of criteria pollutant emissions from the uses potentially allowed in
the Specific Plan. These stationary sources were used along with five (5) diesel trucks to allow a
conservative estimate of criteria pollutant emissions. The five (5) trucks were modeled as idling on
the proposed commercial and industrial sites for 8-hours per day.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The model included emissions from the area sources. The emissions used in the modeling analysis
represent the worst-case potential emissions as a result of the project. The results of the modeling
analysis are presented below in Table 5.2-14.
In addition, the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts also requires an analysis of
one intermediate year if the project has over a five-year build-out. It is assumed that in 2015, the
project site has most of the commercial and industrial sources built out. Therefore, a portion of the
stationary sources were included in the model. These sources included a gas station and a light
industry source. In addition, the construction equipment required to build the various uses onsite
were included in the model. The construction equipment included: 2 rough terrain forklifts, 2 skid
steer loaders, 2 rubber tired loaders, a water trucks, a grader, a dump truck, a paver, one piece of
paving equipment, and a roller. In addition, a 20-acre area source was modeled to represent fugitive
dust emissions from grading activities that could be occurring. The construction equipment was
placed around the project site based on the land uses throughout the site.
Table 5.2-14: Project Criteria Pollutant Impact Model Results for Intermediate Construction
Year and Buildout Year
Pollutant Averaging
Period
2015 Project
Impact
(µg/m3)
2027 Project
Impact
(µg/m3)
PSD SIL
(µg/m3)
NAAQS
(µg/m3)
CAAQS
(µg/m3)
1 - hour 85.50* 15.64 -- -- 470 NOx
Annual 1.38* 0.20 1 100 --
1-hour 23.52 23.52 -- -- 655
3-hour 12.73 13.86 25 1,300 --
24-hour 2.60 3.03 5 -- 105
SOx
Annual 0.20 0.29 1 80 --
1-hour 161.21 45.20 2,000 40,000 23,000 CO
8-hour 37.68 14.93 500 10,000 10,000
24-hour 24.94 3.78 5 150 50 PM10
Annual 2.37 1.25 1 50 20
24-hour 12.78 3.04 -- 65 -- PM2.5
Annual 0.95 0.74 -- 15 12
30-day 0.00051 0.00041 -- -- 1.5
Lead Calendar
Quarter 0.00051** 0.00041** -- 1.5 --
The NOx value has the national average ARM value of 0.75 applied.
** The Calendar Quarter Value will be less than the monthly value. However, in order to be conservative, the monthly
value was used to represent the Calendar Quarter maximum emissions.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-34 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The maximum predicted impacts were compared to the applicable California and National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS). The impacts are below the applicable standards and
therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
Visibility Impacts
An analysis was conducted of the potential project-related impacts to visibility; including Class I
areas located within 100 kilometers of the project site (see “Site Location 100 km Radius” within the
Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR). One military site located within
approximately 100 kilometers of the project site was also analyzed to determine potential project-
related impacts to visibility. The following section describes the analysis, methodology, and results.
Models and Modeling Techniques
The U.S.EPA model VISCREEN was used with default screening values to estimate impacts to
visibility at the Class I area nearest to the project site. There are two Class I areas located within an
approximate 100-kilometers boundary that are administrated by the U.S. Department of Interior,
National Park Service (NPS), Domeland Wilderness Area and San Rafael Wilderness Area. In
addition, there is a military site; however, it is not considered a Class I area. Visibility impacts were
still considered.
Historically, a representative of NPS, as well as meteorologists at the military site, were contacted for
guidance regarding the Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of the Class I areas. Additionally, two
guidance documents, Guidelines for Evaluating Pollution Impacts on Class I Wilderness Areas in
California, and Assessment of Air Quality and Air Pollutant Impacts in Class I National Parks of
California, were used in the analysis.
VISCREEN uses two scattering angles to calculate potential plume visual impacts for cases where the
plume is likely to be the brightest (i.e. 10 degree azimuth for the forward scatter case) and the darkest
(i.e. 140 degree for the backward scatter case). The forward scatter case produces a very bright
plume when the sun is placed directly in front of the observer, while the backward scatter case
produces a dark plume when the sun is directly behind the observer. For viewing backgrounds, the
terrain is assumed to be black and located as close to the observer and the plume as possible. This
assumption yields the darkest possible background against which plumes are the most likely to be
visible. However, actual viewing backgrounds would be much lighter and located much further from
the observer.
Distances from each site to the closest and most distant borders, as well as the standard visual range
of each Class I area evaluated are presented below:
• Domeland Wilderness: 97 km (closest distance to border) and 129 km (most distant to border),
with a standard visual range of 340 km;
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
• San Rafael Wilderness: 66 km (closest distance to border) and 98 km (most distant to border),
with a standard visual range of 290 km;
• Edwards Air Force Base: 71 km (closest distance to border) and 129 km (most distant to
border), with a standard visual range of 145 km.
Level 1 Screening Analysis Results
The Level 1 visibility screening analysis was conducted using worst-case facility pollutant emissions
presented below:
• Particulate Matter: 0.67 tons/year
• NOx (as NO2): 21.72 tons/year
• Primary NO2: 0 tons/year
• Soot: 0 tons/year
• Primary SO4: 0 tons/year
In accordance with U.S.EPA VISCREEN guidance, primary NO2 was assumed to be zero, while
PM10 emissions from diesel combustion sources were assumed to be particulate. The VISCREEN
results are presented in “Project Specific U.S.EPA VISCREEN Model Results” of the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
The emission rates used in the VISCREEN model are based on the total emissions from the project.
These include the area source emissions. The indirect source operational emissions will not occur
onsite and therefore cannot contribute to a visible plume originating from the site. Project-related
PM10 area source emissions are less than zero (see Table 5.2-13), and cannot be modeled as such.
Zero tons per year were input into the model. Since the sources onsite will be spread out and will not
contribute to a single plume, like the one being considered in the model, the analysis is conservative.
The results are contained in the “Level 1 Screening Analysis Results: of the Air Quality Assessment
in Appendix C of this Draft EIR and show that the proposed project will not exceed the standards for
visibility at sensitive receptors within 100 km.
Visibility was evaluated in proximity to the project in accordance with the California visibility
standard. The maximum modeled PM10 project impact is shown above in Table 5.2-14. This impact
is less than the 90 µg/m3 limit and therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
Summary of Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant area sourse emissions, mobile
source emissions and stationary source emissions. The project will also result in less than significant
impacts related to criteria pollutants and visibility impacts.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Mitigation Measures
The proposed project will have air pollutant emissions associated with the construction, operation and
occupied use of the project site. The following mitigation measures include the District’s New
Source Review Rule and an Air Quality Mitigation Agreement. As shown on Table 5.2-13, the
project will result in 90.97 tons of ROG per year. Compliance with the District’s New Source
Review Rule would reduce the project’s ROG emissions from 90.97 tons per year to 68.05 tons per
year. Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would further reduce the project’s
ROG emissions from 68.05 tons per year to 0 tons per year. Also shown on Table 5.2-13, the project
will result in 33.20 tons of NOx per year. Compliance with the District’s New Source Review Rule
would reduce the project’s NOx emissions from 33.20 tons per year to 19.20 tons per year.
Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would further reduce the project’s NOx
emissions from 19.20 tons per year to 0 tons per year. Table 5.2-13 also shows that the proposed
project will result in 38.79 tons of PM10 per year. The District’s New Source Review Rule would not
reduce the project’s PM10 emissions; however, the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would reduce
the project’s PM10 emissions from 38.79 tons per year to 0 tons per year.
5.2.C.1 Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall comply with District
Regulation II, specifically, the project will be subject to Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR)
Rule. As a part of the District permitting process, any emissions exceeding the
District’s offsetting thresholds would have to be offset back to the thresholds on a
stationary source by stationary source basis. Accordingly, these NSR Offsets will
reduce ROG net emissions by 22.92 tons per year (from 90.97 tons per year to 68.05
tons per year) and reduce NOx net emissions by 14.00 tons per year (from 33.20 tons
per year to 19.20 tons per year).
In addition to adherence to SJVAPCD rules and regulations, the following mitigation measure has
been designed to reduce emissions:
5.2.C.2 Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall comply in all respects
with developer’s obligations under that certain Air Quality Mitigation Agreement
approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and entered into
by and between the District and developer, a copy of which is contained within the
appendices of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Developer’s compliance with the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will result in a
reduction of ROG, NOx, and PM10 net emissions to zero or in quantities sufficient to
fully mitigate the project’s air quality impacts to the extent that the development of
the project will result in no net increase in criteria pollutant emissions over the
criteria pollutant emissions which would otherwise exist without the development of
the project, all as verified by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Accordingly, the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will further reduce ROG net
emissions by 68.05 tons per year (from 68.05 tons per year to 0 tons per year), will
further reduce NOx net emissions by 19.20 tons per year (from 19.20 tons per year to
0 tons per year), and will reduce PM10 net emissions by 38.79 tons per year (from
38.79 tons per year to 0 tons per year). It should be restated that approximately 39.42
tons per year of ROG, 28.22 tons per year of NOx, and 43.28 tons per year of PM10
from onsite agricultural emissions will be subtracted from the proposed project
emissions since they will phased out as the project is developed.
The Air Quality Mitigation Agreement approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District, and entered into by and between the District and developer is a voluntary emission reduction
program in line with Air District goals, and similar in nature to other agreements entered into by the
Air District.
The program provides for the following:
1. Air District review and approval of the air quality assessment protocol
2. Air District review and approval of the air quality assessment
3. Air District receipt of the monies required to provide full mitigation of the development’s
emission impact and implementation of the emission reduction projects
4. Castle & Cooke reimbursement of the Air District for the services
5. Castle & Cooke assistance in locating the emission reduction projects
6. Castle & Cooke implementation of all feasible air mitigation measures through “smart
growth” design of the development
7. Emission reductions
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant.
Project Specific Public Health/Hazards Impacts (Sensitive Receptors)
Impact 5.2.D: The project may potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Toxic Air Contaminants
There are several potential sources of toxic emissions from the uses allowed in the Specific Plan,
including gasoline-dispensing facilities. These sources were used along with diesel trucks allow a
conservative estimate of toxic emissions. The uses included the two (2) gas stations, and 5 trucks,
which were assumed to be idling on the site for 8-hours/per day.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The first potential source of emissions is the gas stations. The gas stations will generate TAC
emissions as a result of the normal fueling process. The organic emissions were presented above in
the Stationary Source Emission section. These TAC emissions were then broken into components
using CARB’s speciation profile for gasoline. The speciation provides the weight fractions of each
component in gasoline. The results of the speciation are shown below in Table 5.2-15.
Table 5.2-15: Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Isopentane 34.88 2.89E-01 1.27E+00
Methyl T-Butyl Ether (Mtbe) 16.83 1.39E-01 6.10E-01
N-Pentane 7.28 6.03E-02 2.64E-01
N-Butane 6.29 5.21E-02 2.28E-01
2-Methylpentane 5.57 4.61E-02 2.02E-01
3-Methylpentane 3.06 2.53E-02 1.11E-01
Methylcyclopentane 2.64 2.19E-02 9.58E-02
2,3-Dimethylbutane 1.95 2.89E-01 1.27E+00
Toluene 1.59 1.39E-01 6.10E-01
2,2-Dimethylbutane 1.55 6.03E-02 2.64E-01
N-Hexane 1.44 5.21E-02 2.28E-01
Isobutane 1.3 4.61E-02 2.02E-01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 1.21 2.53E-02 1.11E-01
Unidentified 1.16 2.19E-02 9.58E-02
2-Methyl-2-Butene 1.02 1.61E-02 7.07E-02
Cyclopentane 0.98 1.32E-02 5.77E-02
Cyclohexane 0.96 1.28E-02 5.62E-02
3-Methylhexane 0.74 1.19E-02 5.22E-02
Trans-2-Pentene 0.73 1.08E-02 4.72E-02
2-Methylhexane 0.67 1.00E-02 4.39E-02
2,3-Dimethylpentane 0.65 9.61E-03 4.21E-02
Trans-2-Butene 0.59 8.45E-03 3.70E-02
2,4-Dimethylpentane 0.51 8.12E-03 3.55E-02
2-Methyl-1-Butene 0.41 7.95E-03 3.48E-02
N-Heptane 0.39 6.13E-03 2.68E-02
Methylcyclohexane 0.38 6.05E-03 2.65E-02
Benzene 0.36 5.55E-03 2.43E-02
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-15 (Cont.): Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Cis-2-Butene 0.34 5.38E-03 2.36E-02
M-Xylene 0.32 4.89E-03 2.14E-02
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 0.31 4.22E-03 1.85E-02
2,3,3-Trimethylpentane 0.31 3.40E-03 1.49E-02
Cis-2-Pentene 0.3 3.23E-03 1.41E-02
Propane 0.28 3.15E-03 1.38E-02
1-Pentene 0.22 2.98E-03 1.31E-02
2-Methyl-2-Pentene 0.18 2.82E-03 1.23E-02
Isobutylene 0.16 2.65E-03 1.16E-02
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane 0.14 2.57E-03 1.12E-02
2,4-Dimethylhexane 0.13 2.57E-03 1.12E-02
1-Butene 0.12 2.48E-03 1.09E-02
2-Methylheptane 0.12 2.32E-03 1.02E-02
O-Xylene 0.12 1.82E-03 7.98E-03
3-Methylheptane 0.12 1.49E-03 6.53E-03
2,5-Dimethylhexane 0.12 1.32E-03 5.80E-03
Ethylbenzene 0.11 1.16E-03 5.08E-03
4-Methyl-Trans-2-Pentene 0.1 1.08E-03 4.72E-03
P-Xylene 0.1 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Cyclopentene 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
2-Methyl-3-Ethylpentane 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Trans-2-Hexene 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
3-Methyl-1-Butene 0.08 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Ethylcyclohexane 0.07 9.11E-04 3.99E-03
3-Methyl-Trans-2-Pentene 0.06 8.28E-04 3.63E-03
2-Methyl-1-Pentene 0.06 8.28E-04 3.63E-03
2,2-Dimethylpentane 0.06 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
4-Methylheptane 0.06 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
N-Octane 0.05 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
Cis-3-Hexene 0.05 6.62E-04 2.90E-03
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane 0.04 5.80E-04 2.54E-03
3-Ethylpentane 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-15 (Cont.): Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Cis-2-Hexene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
1-Methyl-3-Ethylbenzene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
3-Methyl-Cis-2-Pentene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
1,2,4-Triethylbenzene 0.04 4.14E-04 1.81E-03
1-Hexene 0.03 4.14E-04 1.81E-03
4-Methyl-1-Pentene 0.03 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
2-Hexenes 0.03 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
1,3,5-Triethylbenzene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
4-Methyl-Cis-2-Pentene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
2-Ethyl-1-Butene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
1-Methyl-4-Ethylbenzene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
N-Nonane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
3,3-Dimethylhexane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
2,3-Dimethylhexane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
2,2-Dimethylhexane 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
Cis-1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
T-Amylmethylether (Tame) 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 0.01 8.28E-05 3.63E-04
1-Methyl-2-Ethylbenzene 0.01 8.28E-05 3.63E-04
Total 100 0.828 3.63
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006
In order to take the health effects of diesel particulate emissions into account, the emissions from
idling trucks were calculated and included in the health risk assessment model. In order to be
conservative, it was assumed that up to 5 trucks could be idling onsite at any given time, 8 hours per
day. The emission rate for diesel particulate matter was taken from EMFAC. EMFAC allows for the
idling emission rate to be determined for heavy-heavy duty trucks. EMFAC reports the idling
emission rate as 0.05 grams per minute. This converts to 0.007 pounds per hour for each truck. The
total assumed diesel particulate matter being emitted onsite at any one time is therefore assumed to be
0.035 pound per hour. Additionally, the NOx emissions from these trucks were based on EMFAC
emission rates and totals 0.626 pounds per hour for all 5 trucks. For the health risk assessment
model, these emissions were modeled as individual trucks idling at each building. It should be noted
that these emissions are taken into account in the operational source emission totals.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate the extent of public exposure to each substance
for which cancer risk will be quantified or non-cancer effects evaluated. This involves emission
quantification, modeling of environmental transport, evaluation of environmental fate, identification
of exposure routes, identification of exposed populations, and estimating short-term and long-term
exposure levels.
Emissions Quantification
For this risk assessment, air toxics emissions from the project were quantified based on the design
specifications described above, and analytical sample analyses. Emission estimates were based on
hourly and annual emission calculations.
Peak hourly emissions are in units of grams per second (g/s).
Annual emissions (g/s) = (Peak Hourly - g/s) x Operating Schedule (hr/day) x days per year (day/yr) /
(8,760 hr/yr)
This results in an annualized emission rate of the pollutant expressed on a short-term basis.
Modeling of Environmental Transport
The Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model was utilized for the air toxics exposure
assessment. Meteorological data, emission sources and model control parameters were identical to
those utilized for the criteria pollutant impact analysis described above.
Identification of Exposure Routes
The exposure analysis included the four pathways recommended by the OEHHA (i.e., inhalation,
dermal exposure, soil ingestion, and mother’s milk).
Identification of Exposed Populations
For this assessment, a computer-generated Cartesian grid of model receptors was constructed. The
receptor grid does not represent actual persons, but rather, was utilized to construct impact isopleths
and determine the locality of the maximum predicted impacts. From these isopleths, potential
impacts to neighboring receptors were obtained.
Estimated Short- and Long-Term Exposure Levels
The HARP model was used to estimate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic (acute and chronic)
health risk impacts. HARP is a multi-source, multi-pollutant, multi-pathway risk assessment model.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the process of evaluating the risks due to facility emissions. As explained
above, the HARP model calculates the estimated cancer and non-cancer health risk based on the
predicted short-term and long-term exposure levels for each air toxic at each model receptor. This
section presents the total predicted individual cancer risk for residential and working populations,
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
presents the total population excess cancer burden, and evaluates the predicted non-cancer health
hazards from the proposed project.
CARB generally considers a potential cancer risk of ten in a million (i.e., 10 x 10-6) as significant.
For acute or chronic non-cancer health impacts, the AB2588 significance threshold is 1.0. For this
health risk assessment, the AB2588 significance thresholds were used:
Excess Cancer Risk: 10.0 x 10-6
Non-Cancer Health Hazard Indices: 1.0
Direct Toxic Impacts
Cancer Impacts
The total individual excess cancer risk is defined as the cancer risk of a hypothetical individual that is
exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular facility continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, for a 70 year lifetime. This risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the
background cancer risk to the population. The maximum impact is located on the lower portion of
the northwestern fence line of the property.
Since the modeled risk is lower than the 10E-06 threshold, it is considered less than significant. The
model results are contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air
Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Scientists at OEHHA have established No Adverse Effect Level (NAEL) concentrations for non-
carcinogenic chemicals. In determining these thresholds, OEHHA has assumed continuous exposure,
24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with a 70-year exposure. According to OEHHA, exposure to non-
carcinogens at or below the chronic NAEL will not result in adverse chronic non-cancer health effects
to the public.
Since the modeled risk is lower than 1, it is considered less than significant. The model results are
contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Acute Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Scientists at OEHHA believe that one-hour average exposures at or below the acute NAEL will not
result in acute adverse health effects to the public. OEHHA only considers the inhalation exposure
pathway for acute health effects.
Since the modeled risk is lower than 1, it is considered less than significant. The model results are
contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Uncertainty in Impact Assessment
Predictions of future health risks include substantial uncertainties. There are model and data
uncertainties with respect to the assumed emissions, dispersion modeling and toxicological factors,
and uncertainties with respect to the characteristics of the potentially exposed population. For
example, possible exposure scenarios can be based on the assumption that a person resides in the
same location for the average period in U.S. residency (approximately 9 years), or for the 90th
percentile of residency (approximately 30 years), or for an entire lifetime (approximately 70 years).
Further, that exposure may be assumed at the highest modeled concentration, or some average, or a
modestly high concentration representative of the exposed population.
Because risk assessments are often performed to limit impacts to public health, the assumptions used
in assessments are typically conservative in nature. The risk assessment methodology described
above followed the CAPCOA and OEHHA guidelines, which are specified by regulators with a
conservative bias. The following discussion provides qualitative assessments of the uncertainty
associated with four major areas of the health risk assessment.
Air Dispersion Modeling
In general, U.S.EPA-approved dispersion models such as ISCST3 tend to over-predict concentrations
rather than under-predict. For example, the model algorithms assume chemical emissions are not
transformed in the atmosphere into other chemical compounds. For certain pollutants, conversion
may occur quickly enough to reduce concentrations from the conservative model predictions.
Exposure Assessment
The most important uncertainties related to exposure include the definitions of exposed populations
and their exposure characteristics. The choice of a “residential” maximally exposed individual is very
conservative in the sense that no real person is likely to spend 24 hours a day, 365 days a year over a
70-year period at exactly the point of highest toxicity-weighted annual average air concentration. The
greatest true exposure is likely to be at least 10 times lower than that calculated for the MEI.
Toxicity Assessment
The use of toxicity data in risk estimation is also uncertain. Estimates of toxicity for this risk
assessment were obtained from the CAPCOA AB2588 Guidelines (CAPCOA, 1993), which is among
the most conservative compilations of toxicity information. Toxicity estimates are derived either
from observations in humans or from projections derived from experiments with laboratory animals.
Human data are obviously more relevant for health risk assessments, but are often uncertain because
of: 1) difficulty of estimating exposures associated with the health effect of interest; 2) insufficient
study populations; 3) relatively high occupational exposures (the source of human data) that are
extrapolated and applied to low environmental exposures; or 4) variations in the susceptibility of
different populations when compared to the population as a whole. Cancer risk coefficients from
human data are typically considered proportional to pollutant concentration at any level of exposure
(i.e., a linear, no-threshold model), which is conservative at low environmental doses. For non-cancer
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
effects, the lowest exposure known to cause effects in humans is usually divided by uncertainty or
safety factors to account for variations in receptor susceptibility and other factors. When toxicity
estimates are derived from animal data, they usually involve extra safety factors to account for the
possibility of greater sensitivity in humans, and the less-than-human-lifetime observations in animals.
Overall, the toxicity assumptions and criteria used in the proposed project’s risk assessment are
biased toward over-estimating risk. The amount of the bias is unknown, but could be substantial.
Modeling was performed for all Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) estimated to be emitted from the
proposed project with HARP. This modeling, as shown on Tables 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 contained in
the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR demonstrated that at the maximum point
of impact at the nearest fence line, and at the proposed location of the schools that the health based
standards were not exceeded. Therefore, health risk impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
Mobile Source - Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Impacts
Carbon monoxide emissions are a function of vehicle idling time and, thus, under normal
meteorological conditions, depend on traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is
extremely limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme
meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or intersection
may reach unhealthful levels, affecting sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital
patients, the elderly, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or
intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS). CO “Hot Spot” modeling is
required if a traffic study reveals that the project will reduce the LOS on one or more streets to E or F;
or, if the project will worsen an existing LOS F.
A traffic study was prepared for the project by McIntosh & Associates. The traffic study states that
with the full build out of the project along with future roadway and intersection improvements, there
may be several intersections that could fall below a level of service D. Most of these intersections are
minimally impacted by the proposed project and will be below a level of service D even if the project
is not built. There are four intersections that will have a level of service “E” or “F” designation.
These intersections were analyzed for potential CO hotspots.
The impact of the proposed project on local carbon monoxide levels was assessed at these
intersections with the Caltrans CALINE-4 Air Quality Model, which allows micro scale CO
concentrations to be estimated along each roadway corridor or near intersections. This model is
designed to identify localized concentrations of carbon monoxide, often termed “hot spots”. Year
2030 traffic as predicted by the traffic study was used in the CALINE-4 model.
The modeling analysis was performed for worst-case wind angle and windspeed. The assumptions
are described below:
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Due to lack of specific receptor locations for CO hot spot analysis, locations near the most impacted
intersections were used for this analysis. Selected modeling locations represent the intersections that
would potentially experience LOS E or worse in year 2030 with mitigation if it is required. Receptor
locations with the possibility of extended outdoor exposure were located on sidewalks near the
intersections. A receptor height of 1.8 meters was used in accordance with EPA recommendations.
The proposed intersection mitigation measures were considered in the analysis of these intersections.
Sixteen receptor locations at each intersection, under worst-case wind angle condition, were modeled
to determine carbon monoxide dispersion concentrations. CO concentrations were modeled at these
locations to assess the maximum potential CO exposure that would occur in year 2030.
The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (0.5 m/s), a flat topological
condition between the source and the receptor, and a mixing height of 1,000 meters. A sigma theta of
5 degrees was used for the wind deviation.
The suburban land classification was used for the aerodynamic roughness coefficient. This follows
the CALINE-4 user’s manual definition of suburban as, “regular coverage with large obstacles, open
spaces roughly equal to obstacle heights, villages and mature forests.” The definition of urban states,
“the centers of large towns or cities,” and would not be appropriate for the relatively open landscape
in the project area, even once all of the intended land uses are completed.
CO concentrations are calculated for the one-hour averaging period, and then compared to the state
one-hour CO standard. CO eight-hour averages are extrapolated using techniques outlined by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and compared to the CO eight-hour standards.
Emission factors for year 2020 were used in the model and were predicted by EMFAC. The 2020
emission factors were used in order to be conservative and consistent with the 2025 model run in
URBEMIS 2002. EMFAC is an emission factor program created by CalTrans to estimate mobile
source emission factors. Caltrans has indicated in its Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol (Caltrans, revised 1997) that the “intersection” option of CALINE-4 should not be used
because it calculates model emissions based on an algorithm developed for an outdated vehicle fleet.
The “at-grade” option has been used in this analysis. Emission factors for approach and departure
links were based on approach and departure average speeds as a function of traffic volume, average
cruise speed, and percentage of red time. Emission factors were based on the Caltrans recommended
vehicle fleet mix. A temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit was used to determine the emission
factors. This represents the lowest January average minimum temperature over the last three years
(35.7 degrees Fahrenheit) plus a five-degree correction for the AM and PM traffic conditions.
Concentrations are given in parts per million (ppm) at each of the receptor locations.
Ambient CO concentrations were estimated by adding the second highest measured value from the
Bakersfield monitoring stations during the last two years to the modeled impact in accordance with
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
U.S. EPA guidelines. The 8-hour value obtained in this manner was 2.20 ppm (Bakersfield,
California Avenue monitoring station, 2005), which is equivalent to a 1-hour value of 4.2 ppm using
the Caltrans recommended persistence factor of 0.6 for suburban classification. Actual future
ambient CO levels may be lower due to emissions control strategies that will be implemented
between now and year 2030.
The results of the model are shown below in Table 5.2-16; the input and output data is contained in
“CALINE-4 CO Hotspots” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-16: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations
Maximum Modeled Impact
Year 2030 w/Project Intersection
1 Hr (ppm) 8 Hr (ppm)
Rosedale Hwy. at Coffee Rd. 5.9 3.5
Truxtun Ave. at Coffee Rd. 6.3 3.8
Stockdale Hwy. at New Stine Rd / California Ave 5.8 3.5
1 hour concentrations include ambient CO of 4.2 ppm (Second highest 2 year Impact, 8-hour average corrected upwards
for 1-hour averaging period).
8 hour concentrations were obtained by multiplying the 1-hour concentration by a factor of 0.6, as referenced in
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, CalTrans, December 1997. Predicted concentrations modeled
using “worst case” option.
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
The modeling results are compared to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon
monoxide of 9 ppm on an 8-hour average and 20 ppm on a 1-hour average. Neither the 1-hour
average nor the 8-hour average would be equaled or exceeded at any of the intersections studied.
An intermediate year was also modeled for CO impact. The intermediate year results of the model
are shown below in Table 5.2-17.
Table 5.2-17: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum Modeled Impact
Year 2015 w/Project Intersection
1 Hr (ppm) 8 Hr (ppm)
Rosedale Hwy. at Coffee Rd. 5.7 3.4
Truxtun Ave. at Coffee Rd. 6.4 3.8
Stockdale Hwy. at New Stine Rd / California Ave 5.8 3.5
1 hour concentrations include ambient CO of 4.2 ppm (Second highest 2 year Impact, 8-hour average corrected upwards
for 1-hour averaging period).
8 hour concentrations were obtained by multiplying the 1-hour concentration by a factor of 0.6, as
referenced in Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, CalTrans, December 1997.
Predicted concentrations modeled using “worst case” option.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Neither the 1-hour average nor the 8-hour average would be equaled or exceeded at any of the
intersections studied.
Modeling was conducted to determine the impact of the mobile sources in accordance with the CO
“Hot Spots” model, CALINE 4. The results are shown in Table 5.3-17 above and do not equal or
exceed the standards. Therefore, CO impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Valley Fever Exposure
Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation
of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United
States. The fungus is very prevalent in the soils of California’s San Joaquin Valley, particularly in
Kern County. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the
spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline, sandy soils.
Based on skin test surveys, the incidence of Valley Fever is between 25,000 and 100,000 new
infections per year, with 70 deaths annually in the United States. It is difficult to determine the exact
number of primary pulmonary and disseminated (cases in which the spores spread throughout the
body) cases contracted annually, since diagnosis and reporting of cases is very incomplete. In Kern
County, data from laboratory test reports indicate the occurrence of about 270 symptomatic infections
per year, including 12 disseminated cases with an average of 5 deaths annually.
At least 60 percent of primary coccidioidomycosis is acquired symptomatically, with a positive result
on a skin test being the only manifestation of infection. Forty percent of the infections become
symptomatic with a disease spectrum ranging from mild influenza-like illness to a fulminating
dissemination resulting in death. Primary coccidioidomycosis is limited to the initial lesions in the
lungs where symptoms typically include fever, which may be 99 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, chills,
profuse sweating at night, and chest pain, which may worsen to include coughing, loss of appetite,
headache, generalized muscle and joint aches, and slight swelling and redness of the joints. The
prognosis of primary coccidioidomycosis is usually reliable and symptoms generally clear within two
or three weeks. Patients whose symptoms persist after 6 to 8 weeks may be considered to have
persistent pulmonary coccidioidomycosis.
Dissemination of coccidioidomycosis to sites in the body other than the lungs usually occurs within
the first or second month and can cause a variety of symptoms. Dissemination may involve any
organ of the body, except those in the gastrointestinal tract. The skin, bones, joints, meninges, and
genitourinary system are most commonly involved. Involvement of a vital organ may result in death.
Meningitis occurs in one-third to one-half of all patients with disseminated disease. Untreated
coccidioidal meningitis is usually fatal within less than two years.
The five major factors that have an effect on the susceptibility to coccidioidal dissemination are race,
sex, pregnancy, age and immunosuppression. In a retrospective study of the Kern County Health
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-48 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Department records, 64 deaths were recorded for the period 1901 to 1936, when the County had a
population of 82,570. According to this data, Mexicans were 3.4 times more likely than whites to
develop coccidioidal dissemination; blacks were 13.7 times more likely; and Filipinos were 175.5
times more likely. Death due to the disease was five times greater for Mexicans, 23.3 times greater
for blacks, and 191.4 times greater for Filipinos than for white patients. Adult white females are
ordinarily quite resistant to dissemination of the disease, but if they acquire the infection during the
last half of pregnancy, there is a risk that it will spread beyond the lungs. Children under five and
older individuals, perhaps those above fifty, also appear to be more likely to undergo dissemination of
the infection.
The highest incidence rates within Kern County have occurred in the areas of Northeast Bakersfield,
Lamont-Arvin, Taft, and Edwards Air Force Base. New residents to the San Joaquin Valley have
usually never been exposed to “Valley Fever,” and as a result are particularly susceptible to the
infection. Many longtime residents of the area have at some time been exposed to the fungus,
become infected, and have recovered, and are thus immune.
The soils in the areas of Arvin and Lamont are derived from decomposing Quaternary alluvial fan
deposits. These, however, are sourced from Mesozoic Sierran granitic rocks having a different
mineralogical and consequent chemical content than the soil in the area of the project site. The soils
in the area of Edwards Air Force Base are composed of decomposed, reworked non-marine alluvium,
evaporite playa, sand, and terrace deposits. These have been derived from various Mesozoic granitic
rocks. The increased aridity and prevalence of evaporates would alter the chemical composition, as
compared to the soil in the area of the project site, which forms in a wetter environment. The soils in
the Taft area are mainly sourced from the nearby outcropping marine Miocene Monterey Formation
consisting mainly of sands, silts and diatomites. These again should form a somewhat dissimilar
mineralogical and consequent chemical content than the soil in the area of the project site. The soils
in the area of Sharks Tooth Hill in Northeast Bakersfield which is endemic for San Joaquin Valley
Fever, Coccidioidomycosi, is composed of the decomposed marine Round Mountain Silt Member of
the Miocene Temblor Formation. The soil in the area of the project site is derived from decomposing
Quaternary alluvial fan deposits as sourced from the Tehachapi Mountain foothills, composed of
reworked marine Miocene deposits. These various rock types would lead to differing soils based
upon the variation in mineralogical and consequent chemical content. Therefore, as indicated by the
dissimilarity between the historic sites of Valley Fever and the West Ming project area, and
considering the District Regulation VIII dust control measures, the risk of contacting Valley Fever in
connection with the project is considered to be unlikely.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Objectionable Odors
Impact 5.2.E: The project may potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Odor is strongest at its source and dissipates with increasing distance. The offensiveness and degree
of odor is ultimately dependent on the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. According to
the District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), facilities located
one mile or less from a sensitive receptor may create a significant odor impact to the sensitive
receptor that may possibly be significant, and require a detailed analysis to assess impact significance.
The detailed analysis includes evaluation of local meteorological conditions at the project site. The
District’s guidance indicates that a detailed analysis would include evaluating whether complaints
have been filed with the District for similar existing operations. The following analysis of potential
odor impacts was conducted in accordance with the District’s GAMAQI.
According to the District, there were no odor complaints received within the last 2 years for sources
in the general project area, which represents a 1-mile radius around the West Ming Specific Plan.
This is indicated by odor complaint reports received from the District (see “Odor Complaint Reports”
in Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR).
Temperature, wind, dust conditions, topography, and the presence of physical obstructions affect the
degree of odor impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The maximum summer temperature in the
southern San Joaquin Valley is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (90ºF). Odor compounds travel further
in warm climates than in relatively cooler climates. During windy conditions, odor compounds are
diluted with fresh air and, consequently, disperse more quickly and are less noticeable at a distance.
However, wind direction also defines the direction of travel for odors. Physical obstructions, such as
windbreaks, cause more rapid dilution of odorous compounds and also capture odor-containing
fugitive dust.
Historical wind data from the nearby National Weather Service (NWS) station at the
Bakersfield/Kern County - Meadows Field Airport was examined to determine wind patterns in the
project area. A wind rose diagram is included as “Wind Rose Diagram” in the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. In the project area, winds generally blow from the
northwest or southeast, depending on the time of day and season.
Odorous compounds listed below in Table 5.2-18 may be emitted from the proposed project in the
final construction year approaching the operation at full buildout. The concentrations were modeled
using ISCST3 and models as previously discussed. The concentrations at the maximum point of
impact were compared with the odor thresholds delineated by Nagata. The results along with the
threshold values are shown in Table 5.2-18.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-18: Operational Year Odor Impacts
Chemical Name Symbol Threshol
d (ppm) MW Threshold
(µg/m3)
Highest 1-
Hr Impact
(µg/m3)
Odor
Threshold
Exceeded
?
Acetaldehyde ACETA 0.0015 44.05 2.8 1.04 No
Acrolein ACROL 0.0036 56.06 8.5 0.04 No
Benzene BENZE 2.7 78.11 8,904.1 0.25 No
Butadiene-1,3 BUTAD 0.23 54.09 525.2 0.03 No
Chloroform CHCl3 3.8 119.38 19,152.8 0.00 No
Formaldehyde HCHO 0.5 30.03 633.9 2.27 No
Hydrochloric acid HCl 0.049 36.46 75.4 0.25 No
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.12 46.00 233.1 31.0 No
Propylene PROPL 13 42.08 23,096.0 0.62 No
Sulfur dioxide SO2 0.87 64.00 2,350.8 10.9 No
Toluene TOL 0.33 92.13 1,283.6 0.14 No
Xylene XYLEN 0.041 106.00 183.5 0.06 No
Ethylbenzene EthBe 0.17 106.17 762.0 0.04 No
Hexane C6H12 1.5 84.00 5,319.7 0.52 No
Odor thresholds were converted from ppm to g/m3 using the equation ( g/m3) = (ppm) * MW * 42.22, where MW is
the molecular weight of the specific compound. This is based on standard conditions of 25oC and 14.7 psi.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
As shown above in Table 5.2-18, none of the impacts exceed the odor thresholds. The odor impacts
are therefore considered less than significant.
Odor assessments in accordance with GAMAQI were conducted and no odor complaints were found.
Modeling was conducted through ISCST3 for individual odor producing chemicals that may be
emitted from the proposed project. The results are contained in Table 5.3-18 above. The odor
thresholds are not met or exceeded for the operational phase. Therefore, odor impacts are considered
to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
5.3 - Biological Resources
5.3.1 - Introduction
Information in this section is based on the following documents. These documents are contained
within Appendix D of this EIR.
• Biota Report, Paul Pruett and Associates, August 13, 2006.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, April 1994.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. This document is available for review
at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield,
California 93301.
5.3.2 - Environmental Setting
Methodology
Studies of biological resources associated with the project site began with a review of relevant
literature followed by a reconnaissance-level field survey. The reconnaissance-level survey provided
documentation of the biological resources existing on the project site.
Literature Review
Scientific literature from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), including Rare Find 2 information dated March 1, 2003, and Rare
Find 3 information dated March 3, 2006 were consulted to determine which sensitive plant and
wildlife species occur on and in the vicinity of (approximately seven miles) the project site. The
literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially
occurring on and in the vicinity of the project site.
Reconnaissance-Level Surveys
A reconnaissance-level survey was conducted over all portions of the project site by Paul Pruett and
Associates biologists for plants and animals on six different days between August 28, 2003 and
January 14, 2004. An additional survey was conducted by Steven Pruett on June 30, 2006.
Vegetation Survey Methods
The methods of random search and line transects were used to survey the plant community. The
entire project was surveyed by walking all perimeter and internal roads and by walking the western
fallow land on approximately 100-foot intervals.
Animal Survey Methods
All fieldwork performed by Paul Pruett and Associates followed the general guidelines established by
the California Department of Fish and Game, Region 4, dated May 8, 1990. Special attention was
given to the location of potential kit fox den sites, possible kangaroo rat precincts, and to the possible
presence of the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard.
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
General Biological Resources
The majority of the project site, along with the surrounding area, has been farmed since
approximately 1970. At the time that the biological surveys were conducted by Paul Pruett and
Associates, crops on the site consisted of onions, corn, and carrots. Farming activities, such as land
leveling, have resulted in a lack of topographical features on the project site. In addition, no geologic
features are present on the project site.
In addition to agriculture, the site has been used for oil exploration and production activities from the
1930’s to the present. Oil field operations are located in the northern and southern portion of the
project site. The soils on the site are Cajon loamy sand (0 to 2 percent slopes), Cajon sandy loam
(overblown, 0 to 2 percent slope), Excelsior sandy loam, and Kimberlina fine sandy loam (0 to 2
percent slopes).
Based on the literature review and field reconnaissance, the project site contains habitat that supports
or potentially supports non-sensitive and sensitive plant and wildlife species. Following is a
discussion of the onsite habitat and non-sensitive and sensitive plant and wildlife species. The
sensitive plant and wildlife species are considered those species that have a special status designation
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Game.
Vegetation
The project site consists of agricultural habitat that includes active farming areas as well as fallow
areas. Agricultural habitat is not considered a sensitive habitat. Therefore, the project site does not
contain sensitive habitat.
Non-Sensitive Plant Species
Based on the field surveys, there were a total of 40 non-sensitive plant species found on the project
site, including 11 non-native plant species and 29 native plant species. These plant species are
identified in Table 3 in Appendix D.
Non-Sensitive Wildlife Species
A total of 19 non-sensitive vertebrate species including four mammals, 14 birds, and one reptile were
observed during the field surveys on the project site. No amphibians were identified on the site
during the reconnaissance-level surveys. These non-sensitive wildlife species are identified in Table
4 in Appendix D.
Sensitive Plant Species
No sensitive plant species were observed on the project site during the field surveys. Based on the
literature review, three sensitive plant species listed on the CNDDB are known to occur in the vicinity
of the project site (see Table 5.3-1). Following is a discussion of each of the three sensitive plant
species.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
• The Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum). This species is not listed as threatened
or endangered by either the federal or state agencies, but is a federal Species of Concern and
tracked by the CNDDB as a California Native Plant Society (CNSP) 1B plant. Based on the
literature search, the closest reported occurrence of this species is about six miles southwest of
the project site, west of the James Canal between State Route 119 and Panama Lane, and it was
reported in 1992. This species grows to approximately 85 centimeters and blooms during April
and May. Based on the field surveys, no evidence of this species was found on the site.
• San Joaquin Wooly Threads (Monolopia (Lembertia) congdonii). This species is listed as
endangered by USFWS and as threatened by CDFG. Based on the literature review, the closest
reported occurrence of this species is approximately three miles southeast of the project site,
east of Highway 43. This species is yellow and is 5 to 30 centimeters. Based on the field
surveys, no evidence of this species was found on the site.
• California Jewel-Flower (Caulanthus californicus). This species is listed as endangered by
both the USFWS and CDFG. Based on the literature review, the closest reported occurrence of
this species is approximately three miles northeast of the site, and it was seen in 1900. This
species is reported in the Paine Preserve about 15 miles northwest of the project site. It was
transplanted in the Preserve in 1975. The species has leaves that are less than 11 centimeters
and flowers that are 6 to 11 millimeters. Based on the field surveys, no evidence of this species
was found on the project site.
Table 5.3-1: Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Site
Species USFWS CDFG CNPSC
Plant Species
Recurved Delphinium (Delphinium recurvatum) FSC — 1B
San Joaquin Woolly Threads (Monolopia (Lembertia)
congdonii)
FEa — 1B
California Jewel-Flower (Caulanthus californicus) FEa CEb 1B
Wildlife Species
San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) FEa CTb —
Tipton Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) FEa CEb —
Tulare Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys torridus tularensis) CSC —
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) (Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
— CSC —
Swainsons Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) FSC CTb —
Tri-Colored Blackbird (Aegelaius tricolor) FSC — —
Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia silus) FEa CEb —
Western Spadefoot (Scaphiopus hammondii) FSC CSC —
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Table 5.3-1 (Cont.): Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring on the
Project Site
Species USFWS CDFG CNPSC
Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) FSC CSC —
Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) FEa CSC —
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS Federal Listing Categories:
FE Federal Endangereda
FT Federal Threateneda
FSC Federal Species of Concern
California Department of Fish and Game CDFG State Listing Categories:
CE California Endangeredb
CT California Threatenedb
CSC California Species of Concern
FP Fully Protected
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Categories: c
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
4D Plants of limited distribution.
a Protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
b Protected under the California Endangered Species Act.
c The CNPS is a private non-profit organization that works closely with CDFG throughout the state. CNPS-developed
information serves as an important source of date for consideration by CDFG and USFWS in recommendations for
listing of State or Federal threatened and endangered species.
Source: Biota Report, Paul Pruett & Associates (2004).
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Two sensitive wildlife species, Athene cunicularia, burrowing owl, and Vulpes macrotis, San Joaquin
kit fox were observed during the field reconnaissance surveys conducted by Paul Pruett and
Associates. Based on the literature review, eleven sensitive wildlife species listed on the CNDBB are
known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Following is a discussion of each of these wildlife
species.
• San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vules macrotis mutica). This species is listed as endangered by
USFWS and threatened by CDFG. Based on the literature review, Kit fox are known to exist
in the general area. The MSHCP, Known Kit Fox Dens Map, November 1, 2004 shows dens
along the east edge of Section 13. This area of the site is regularly disced and maintained for
farming operations and no potential dens were observed during the field surveys. However, the
onsite field surveys by qualified biologists discovered evidence of San Joaquin Kit Fox
presence (i.e., typical kit fox and track) on the project site.
• Tipton Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). This species is listed as
endangered by both USFWS and CDFG. Based on the literature review, the closest reported
species occurrence is approximately four miles northwest of the project site.
This species has similar physical characteristics as another type of Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
nitratoides brevinasus). Based on personal communications with Dr. Dan Williams at
California State University Stanislaus and Dr. David Germano at California State University
Bakersfield, the Tipton Kangaroo Rat is located east of the California Aqueduct which is
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
located approximately five miles west of Interstate 5 in Valley Sink Scrub conditions while the
Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus are located west of the California Aqueduct along the
foothills.
Based on the field surveys, Kangaroo rat burrows exists on the project site. The burrow
openings of the kangaroo rats on the project site as well as in the project vicinity are typical of
Heermann’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni). In addition, the MBHCP Baseline Map
for Animal Species, dated October 23, 1997 does not list the project site as Tipton Kangaroo
Rat habitat. The potential for occurrence on the project site is unlikely due to the extensive
agricultural operations and lack of suitable habitat.
• Tulare Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys torridus tularensis). This species has no state or
federal listing; however, it is designated by CDFG as a Species of Concern. Based on the
literature review, he nearest reported occurrence of the Tulare Grasshopper Mouse is
approximately 6 miles southwest of the project site, approximately 0.8 of a mile north and west
of the Highway 119/Interstate 5 interchange. During the site surveys, some small mammal
burrows were observed onsite, generally in banks along the raised roads. No mice were
observed during these onsite surveys. The potential for this species to occur onsite is unlikely
due to the extensive farming operations and lack of suitable habitat.
• Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). This species has no state or federal listing; however,
the species are designated by CDFG as a Species of Concern and are protected by the
Migratory Bird Act. Based on the literature search, there were three pairs of breeding owls
reported approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project site. In addition, Paul Pruett and
Associates has seen Burrowing Owls in the grasslands approximately one mile east of the
project site. During the site surveys, Burrowing Owls were observed in active burrows on the
project site.
• Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). This species is listed federally as a Species of Concern
and is listed as threatened by CDFG. The species is also protected by the Migratory Bird Act.
Based on the literature search, the closest reported occurrence of the Swainson’s Hawk is on
the Kern River in 1992, very near the project site. No Swainson’s Hawks were observed
during the field surveys on the site, however several large trees suitable for nesting sites exist
on the project site.
• Tri-Colored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). This species is not listed as threatened or
endangered by either USFWS or CDFG; however, both the USFWS and CDFG has designated
the species as a Species of Concern. The species is also protected by the Migratory Bird Act.
Based on the literature review, this species is located in the vicinity of the project site. During
the field surveys, no evidence was found of this species on the project site. Due to the
infrequent use of portions of Sections 10 and 15 for water recharge, the project site exhibits
some characteristics of a marginal marsh habitat; however, because the marginal marsh habitat
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
would be temporary, no suitable permanent habitat is provided on the project site for nesting
for the tricolored blackbird. The closest suitable habitat occurs regularly north of the project
site, within the riparian habitat of the Kern River.
• Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia silus). This species is listed as endangered by both
USFWS and CDFG. Based on the literature review, the closest reported occurrence of the
Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard was in 1974 and is approximately five miles south of the project
site, approximately two miles east of the State Route 119/Interstate 5 interchange. During the
site surveys, there was no evidence of the Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard on the project site. In
addition, the project site is not listed on the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan Baseline Map Animal Species as Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard habitat. The potential for
occurrence is unlikely considering the extensive agricultural operations and lack of suitable
habitat.
• Western Spadefoot (Scaphiopus hammondii). This species is not listed as threatened or
endangered by either USFWS or CDFG; however, both the USFWS and CDFG has designated
this species as a Species of Concern. Based on the literature review, no Western Spadefoot
species have been sited in the vicinity of the project site; however, their range is throughout the
Central Valley and adjacent foothills below 4,500 feet. It occurs primarily in grasslands but
has been known to persist for a few years in orchards. During the site surveys, no Western
Spadefoot species were observed. Furthermore, the project site does not provide suitable
habitat because of the lack of water. The potential for occurrence of this species is unlikely
given the lack of suitable, regular habitat.
• Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida). This species is not listed as
threatened or endangered by either USFWS or CDFG; however, both the USFWS and CDFG
have designated this species as a Species of Concern. Based on the literature review, these
species are known to occur in the Kern River. Based on the site surveys, no Southwestern
Pond Turtles were observed. Furthermore, the project site infrequently provides marginal
marshland habitat; however, due to this infrequency, the project site is not considered suitable
habitat for this species.
• Buena Vista Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus). This species is listed as endangered by USFWS
and is designated by CDFG as a Species of Concern. Based on the literature review, the
closest known occurrence of this species is northwest of the project site in an area originally
proposed as critical habitat by the USFWS, known as Unit 3. The USFWS chose not to
include the Unit 3 site in the final critical habitat designation. Based on the site surveys, no
Buena Vista Shrew were seen on the project site. Furthermore, suitable habitat for this species
does not exist on the project site.
• San Joaquin Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inonatus inornatus). This species is not listed as
threatened or endangered by either USFWS or CDFG; however, CDFG has designated this
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
species as a Species of Concern. Based on literature review, the nearest recorded listing by the
CNDDB is a 2003 occurrence approximately eight and a half miles northwest of the project
site, south of the Pioneer Canal and north of the Kern River. No mice were observed during
onsite surveys. Due to continued farming operations, no suitable habitat for this species exists
within the project site. Therefore, the potential for occurrence of this species is unlikely given
the extensive farming operations and lack of suitable habitat.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. Section 703 et seq.) provides special protection
based on various treaties and conventions for migratory birds. The MBTA, in particular, protects
nesting activities. The MBTA and CDFG Code protect all migratory birds, including birds of prey
such as hawks and owls that occur within the United States with the exception of the house sparrow,
starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkey.
Waters of the United States and Waters of the States
A jurisdictional delineation is typically conducted to determine limits of jurisdiction of United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or CDFG on waters of the U.S. and waters of the state.
Based on the reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by Paul Pruitt and Associates, there are no
natural drainage features on the project site. The Kern River Canal is an artificially constructed and
lined water conveyance canal.
Wildlife Movement Corridor
Wildlife movement corridors are commonly associated with a narrow corridor of habitat that connects
two larger open space areas. The wildlife movement corridor in the vicinity of the project site is the
Kern River. Although the project site is in close proximity of the Kern River, the project site is not
considered part of the wildlife movement corridor due to the routine impacts of the onsite habitat
from agricultural and oil production activities.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site is within the area covered by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP). The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats which
support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth
in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan). The MBHCP generally takes a broad
ecosystem approach on conservation of endangered and other sensitive species and requires
development fees to be paid as mitigation for impacts. These fees are used for the acquisition and
management of lands for conservation which are held in perpetuity. The MBHCP also requires
impact avoidance measures. The MBHCP establishes programmatic mitigation for project impacts on
endangered and other sensitive species.
The MBHCP is currently implemented under the terms of a USFWS Section 10(a) permit of the
United States Endangered Species Act and the terms of a CDFG Section 2081 of the California
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Endangered Species Act. Implementation of the requirements in the MBHCP is overseen by an
Implementation Trust, comprised of representatives from the City and County as administrators,
USFWS and CDFG as mandatory advisors, and any other representatives added or consulted by the
administrators and advisors. The group is responsible for determining preserve acquisition and
management strategies and for directing use of mitigation fees collected by the City and County.
Biological Resource Policies
Based on a review of the biological resources policies provided in the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan and a review of the City’s ordinances, the following goals, policies, and ordinance are
applicable to the proposed project.
Conservation Element
Policy 1 Direct development away from “sensitive biological resource” areas, unless effective
mitigation measures can be implemented.
Policy 2 Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways along
rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and channel
maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity.
Kern River Plan Element
The following policies are identified in the riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat issue area.
Policy 2 All development proposals shall be evaluated by a competent biologist to identify
any significant biological areas necessary for protection. Costs incurred under this
procedure shall be borne by the applicant.
Policy 3 Native vegetation shall be protected by minimizing the introduction of dominant
nonnative plant species. All development proposals, except intensive agriculture,
shall include a landscape plan to identify vegetation to be used on the site and the
method of long-term maintenance of landscaped areas. The submitted landscape plan
shall be used to verify acceptability of vegetation for use along the River. Those
plants found not acceptable shall not be used.
Policy 7 The plan area shall be considered to be entirely within a controlled leash law area.
Policy 10 Projects proposed in the vicinity of the primary floodway shall be referred to the
California Department of Fish and Game as required by State Law.
City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Ordinance 4338)
15.78.030 During the time the Habitat Mitigation Fee is in effect, prior to the approval of any
urban development permit in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
program area, the City will collect a Habitat Mitigation Fee
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
5.3.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
5.3.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would allow for the development of residential, commercial, recreational, and
open space uses on the project site. Development of the project site would result in the permanent
conversion of agricultural lands that may currently be used by some of the species identified above.
Special-Status Species
Impact 5.3.A: The proposed project has a potential to result in 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.
Plant Species
Based on the literature review and field surveys, none of the three sensitive plant species that are
known to occur in the project vicinity were found on the project site. In addition, the project site is
routinely impacted by the existing agricultural and oil production activities. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on sensitive
plant species.
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Wildlife Species
Based on the literature review and field surveys, two of the eleven sensitive wildlife species that are
known to occur in the project vicinity were observed on the project site. The remaining nine sensitive
wildlife species that are known to occur in the project vicinity were not observed on the project site.
Due to the existing agricultural and oil production activities routinely impacting the project site, the
infrequency of the site being used for water recharge, and the current marginal habitat quality of the
onsite habitat, the proposed development is expected to result in less than significant impacts on nine
of the eleven sensitive wildlife species. Since the San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl are
known to exist in the general area, implementation of the proposed project could result in a significant
impact on these species.
Mitigation Measures
5.3.A.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the project applicant shall pay a Habitat Mitigation
Fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code
and MBHCP.
5.3.A.2 Prior to grading plan approval on the approximately 2,182-acre site, the project
proponent shall comply with all appropriate terms and conditions of the MBHCP to
the City regarding San Joaquin kit fox. The MBHCP requires certain take avoidance
measures for the San Joaquin kit fox. MBHCP guidelines regarding tracking and
excavation shall be followed to prevent entrapment of kit fox in dens. Specific
measures during the construction phase of the project shall be implemented and
include the following:
• A pre-construction survey shall be conducted prior to site grading to search for
active kit fox dens. The survey shall be conducted not more than 30 days prior to
the onset of construction activities in areas subject to development to determine the
necessity of den excavation.
• Monitoring and excavation of each known San Joaquin kit fox den which cannot
be avoided by construction activities.
• Notification of wildlife agencies of relocation opportunity prior to ground
disturbance in areas of known kit fox dens.
• Excavations shall either be constructed with escape ramps or covered to prevent kit
fox entrapment. All trenches or steep-walled excavations greater than three feet
deep shall include escape ramps to allow wildlife to escape. Each excavation shall
contain at least one ramp, with long trenches containing at least one ramp every
0.25 mile. Slope of ramps shall be no steeper than 1:1.
• All pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater
shall be kept capped to prevent entry of kit fox. If they are not capped or otherwise
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
covered, they will be inspected prior to burial or closure to ensure no kit foxes, or
other protected species, become entrapped.
• All employees, contractors, or other persons involved in the construction of the
project shall attend a “tailgate” session informing them of the biological resource
protection measures that will be implemented for the project. The orientation shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include information regarding the
life history of the protected species, reasons for special-status, a summary of
applicable environmental law, and measures intended to reduce impacts. A report
summarizing the date, time, and topics of the “tailgate” session, list of attendees
and identification of qualified biologist conducting session shall be submitted to
the Planning Director within 10 days of the “tailgate” session.
• All food, garbage, and plastic shall be disposed of in closed containers and
regularly removed from the site to minimize attracting kit fox or other animals.
5.3.A.3 Since kit foxes are known to exist in the general area, it is recommended that all
construction personnel involved in initial ground disturbance receive sensitive
species instruction prior to initial ground phases of construction. Any evidence, such
as dens, should be avoided and reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution.
5.3.A.4 Prior to grading plan approval for the approximate 2,182-acre site, the project
applicant shall comply with the following raptor nest mitigation:
• If site grading is proposed during the avian nesting season (February to
September), a focused survey for avian nests shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to grading activities in order to identify active nests in areas
potentially impacted by project implementation.
• If construction is proposed to take place during the nesting season (February to
September), no construction activity shall take place within 500 feet of an active
nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified biologist). Habitat
containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall
be removed during the non-breeding season (October to January).
• Preconstruction surveys shall include a survey for burrowing owl. If active
burrowing owl burrows are detected outside of breeding season (September 1
through January 31), passive and/or active relocation efforts may be undertaken if
approved by CDFG and USFWS. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected
during breeding season (February 1 through August 31), no disturbance to these
burrows shall occur in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Natural Habitats
Impact 5.3.B: The proposed project would not result in 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.
Implementation of the proposed project will eliminate approximately 2,182 acres of land that is
mostly in agriculture with some areas that contain non-native valley grassland. No riparian habitat is
located on the project site. The agriculture and non-native valley grassland are not considered
sensitive habitat. Furthermore, the project site has been routinely impacted as a result of the
agricultural and oil production activities and is considered marginal in terms of habitat quality.
Therefore, the loss of these habitats would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Jurisdictional Areas
Impact 5.3.C: The proposed project would not result in 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.
Based on the field surveys, there are no natural drainage features on the project site. The Kern River
Canal crosses the site in a northwest to southeast direction; however, this canal is artificially
constructed and lined and has no riparian habitat. Therefore, there are no areas on the project site that
would qualify as jurisdictional waters by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or CDFG.
Implementation of the proposed project would not impact jurisdictional waters.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Wildlife Movement
Impact 5.3.D: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
Based on the literature review and the field surveys, the Kern River is a wildlife movement corridor
that is located in the vicinity of the project site. Although the project site is in close proximity of the
Kern River, the project site is not considered part of the wildlife movement corridor due to the routine
impacts of the onsite habitat from agricultural and oil production activities. In addition, the project
site does not have trees suitable for raptor nesting species. Therefore, the implementation of the
proposed project would not affect wildlife movement.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Policies or Ordinances Related to Biological Resources
Impact 5.3.E: The proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
Table 5.3-2 provides a discussion of the project’s consistency with the City’s land use goals and
policies contained in the General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. As discussed in
Table 5.3-2, the proposed project would be consistent with all of the relevant land use goals and
policies set forth in the General Plan and in the Municipal Code. Therefore, less than significant
impacts to land use goals and policies would occur with project implementation.
Table 5.3-2: Consistency of the West Ming Specific Plan with the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan
Goals and Policies,
Ordinances West Ming Specific Plan Consistency
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan
Conservation Element
Policy 1 Direct development away from “sensitive biological resource” areas, unless
effective mitigation measures can be implemented.
Consistency Implementation of the proposed project will eliminate approximately 2,182
acres of land that is mostly in agriculture with some areas that contain non-
native grassland habitat. No riparian habitat is located on the project site. The
agriculture and non-native grassland are not considered sensitive habitat.
Project Impacts
Biological Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.3-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Table 5.3-2 (Cont.): Consistency of the West Ming Specific Plan with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan
Goals and Policies,
Ordinances West Ming Specific Plan Consistency
Policy 2 Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways
along rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and
channel maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge
capacity.
Consistency Based on the field surveys, there is no riparian habitat located on the project
site. In addition, the project site is not located within the floodway of the Kern
River. Furthermore, the proposed project includes the extension of the existing
Kern River levee along Ming Avenue to the future embankment of the West
Beltway. Activities on the project site would not affect the maintenance
programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity within the Kern
River.
Kern River Plan Element
Policy 2 All development proposals shall be evaluated by a competent biologist to
identify any significant biological areas necessary for protection. Costs
incurred under this procedure shall be borne by the applicant.
Consistency Potential impacts on biological resources from the development of the proposed
project were evaluated by Paul Pruett & Associates in a Biological Assessment
of Vegetation and Wildlife prepared in April 2005. Paul Pruett & Associates is
considered competent in assessing potential impacts from urban developments.
Policy 3 Native vegetation shall be protected by minimizing the introduction of
dominant nonnative plant species. All development proposals, except intensive
agriculture, shall include a landscape plan to identify vegetation to be used on
the site and the method of long-term maintenance of landscaped areas. The
submitted landscape plan shall be used to verify acceptability of vegetation for
use along the River. Those plants found not acceptable shall not be used.
Consistency Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the removal of native
habitat. The project includes the extension of the existing Kern River levee
along Ming Avenue to the future embankment of the West Beltway. The
project includes landscaping within the West Ming Specific Plan located south
of the existing and future levee. The presence of the levee as well as Ming
Avenue which is proposed as a 110-foot wide right-of-way would provide an
adequate setback of project vegetation from existing vegetation within the Kern
River floodway.
Policy 7 The plan area shall be considered to be entirely within a controlled leash law
area.
Consistency The portion of the project site north of the existing Kern River Canal is
proposed with residential uses. This area will be required to comply with a
controlled leash law.
Policy 10 Projects proposed in the vicinity of the primary floodway shall be referred to
the California Department of Fish and Game as required by State Law.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Biological Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.3-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-03 Biological Resources.doc
Table 5.3-2 (Cont.): Consistency of the West Ming Specific Plan with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan
Goals and Policies,
Ordinances West Ming Specific Plan Consistency
Consistency The proposed project is located south of the primary floodway of the Kern
River. The project will be required to comply with the MBHCP by paying fees
as well as implement pre-construction measures. The MBHCP is currently
implemented under the terms of a USFWS Section 10(a) permit of the United
States Endangered Species Act and the terms of a CDFG Section 2081 of the
California Endangered Species Act. No further coordination with CDFG is
required at this time.
City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Ordinance 4338)
15.78.30 During the time the Habitat Mitigation Fee is in effect, prior to the approval of
any urban development permit in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan program area, the City will collect a Habitat Mitigation Fee.
Consistency In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant will be
required to pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee prior to the approval of urban
development permits for the proposed land uses within the West Ming Specific
Plan.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Adopted HCP or NCCP
Impact 5.3.F: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the adopted MBHCP. To comply with this plan,
the project applicant shall comply with the plan’s mandatory requirements which are to pay a Habitat
Mitigation Fee in accordance with Section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code as
well as implement pre-construction measures. Implementation of the proposed project as well as
complying with the MBHCP mandatory requirements would not conflict with the MBHCP; therefore,
no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Signific5ance After Mitigation
No impact.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
5.4 - Cultural Resources
5.4.1 - Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the West Ming Specific Plan Project upon historical
and archaeological resources within the project area. Information in this section is based on the
following documents and correspondence received on the Notice of Preparation:
• Cultural Resource Survey, Archaeological Associates of Kern County, April 2005. The
complete report is contained in Appendix E of this DEIR.
• Geotechnical Feasibility Study / Geological Hazard Study, Soils Engineering Inc., February 5,
2004. The complete report is contained in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices of the
Draft EIR.
5.4.2 - Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The study area is located on agricultural parcels of land within the southern San Joaquin Valley and
also within the secondary flood plain of the Kern River. The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks are
present along the southern boundary of the project, along with dirt roads and several portions of
irrigation canals, which have been filled in and farmed over. It is further situated in the southern
portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, in Kern County, at an elevation averaging 350 feet
above mean sea level.
This southern part of the Great Interior Central Valley of California is a roughly flat-surfaced,
structural trough (geosyncline) trending northwest-southeast. The soil is identified as having
subsurface conditions typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. A maximum of 50,000
feet of marine Tertiary sediments overlies the pre-Tertiary crystalline rocks, covered by a relatively
thin, sandy, light-colored, and very fine grained Quaternary alluvium. Prehistoric archaeological sites
that occur within this area are often buried by many meters of sediment, built up from the more recent
deposition of alluvium. This arid area occupies a large portion of western and central Kern County
and contains alluvial fan surfaces with intervening basins of the playa type.
Area History
The aboriginal population that occupied the general region was the Southern Valley Yokuts. The
Southern Valley Yokuts lived in variable sized communities throughout Tulare, Buena Vista, the
Kern Lakes, the lower portion of the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers. Their subsistence level
was based on hunting and gathering, with small groups of people moving throughout their territorial
range on a seasonal basis. Various plants were collected, animals trapped and hunted, and shellfish
collected from the sloughs of the marsh areas. Principal villages were located in close proximity to
sources of fresh water. Day use areas, seasonal camps or hunting-kill sites could be found throughout
their territory, as a result of various activities engaged in by this culture.
Project Impacts
Cultural Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.4-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
Archaeological/Historical Resources
Data Sources
A records search was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archeological Information
Center (SSJVIC) at California State University, Bakersfield in October 2003. The search included
the project site and surrounding areas. The files include known and recorded archaeological and
historic sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the Historic Property Data File, (July, 2003), the California
Register, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the
California Points of Historical Interest.
Much of the project area had been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Six previous cultural
resource investigations had previously examined areas that included portions of the project site. The
most significant of these investigations was conducted for a 4,525-acre Parr study conducted in 1994.
That examined the majority of the project site (i.e. all of sections 11, 13, 14, 15, and a portion of
section 10). The Parr Report replicated or incorporated by reference information from the other five
surveys. No conflicting information relevant to this project occurred among the six reports. There
are no cultural resource investigations that were conducted for the remaining portion of section 10.
As a result of prior surveys of the project site, 10 archaeological sites and 26 isolates were located on
the project site. The 10 archaeological sites consist of the following:
• CA-KER-3958 - 25 quartzite cobble fragments, 10 of which were fire-affected. A possible
hammer stone and three fragments of milling equipment were also identified.
• CA-KER-3960 - 15 quartzite cobble fragments and 10 fire-affected rocks. One mano fragment
of red quartzite and two flakes were also recorded.
• CA-KER-3965 - 30 cobbles of fire-affected rock, five chalcedony flakes, five pieces of burned
bone and a fragment of freshwater shell.
• CA-KER-3966 - 15 cobbles of fire-affected rock, six flakes of various materials.
• CA-KER-3972 - two cobbles of fire-affected rock, two basalt flakes and one midsection of a
Grimes Canyon fused shale projectile point, 10 pieces of freshwater shell.
• CA-KER-3973 - 30 cobbles of fire-affected rock, 20 flakes of various materials, one basal
core, burned and unburned bone, several pieces of freshwater shell.
• CA-KER-3974 - 15 cobbles, 10 flakes of various material, about five pieces of burned and
unburned bone.
• CA-KER-3975 - 10 cobbles, one chert core and six flakes of various materials.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
• CA-KER-3976 - two cobbles and one basalt flake.
• CA-KER-3977H - scatter of 15 pieces of stoneware and 10 pieces of glass that dates to the late
19th and 20th centuries of a Chinese ethnic affiliation.
Field Survey
To assess the existing archaeological resources at the project site, Robert A. Schiffman conducted an
onsite field survey in October and November of 2003 and January of 2004 in accordance with CEQA
guidelines. This survey was conducted with the assistance of Alan P. Gold and Kish LaPierre.
Transects were walked through the entire project site, spaced approximately 20 meters apart,
providing a thorough coverage of the study area. The primary objectives of this survey were to
resurvey portions of the project site covered by the 1994 Parr study, and to examine the un-surveyed
portion of Section 10. These tasks were completed in order to identify the presence of any cultural
resources. Also imperative was to relocate and evaluate the 10 archaeological sites and 26 isolate
artifacts previously recorded as per CEQA guidelines.
Archeological Resources
The on-site field survey conducted in October and November of 2003 and January of 2004 did not
identify any new archaeological sites. None of the resources found in prior archaeological studies
could be located. Of the sites previously found within the current study area, none of them
represented significant cultural resources and no further work was conducted at any of them.
Although recommendations for additional work were tendered as a result of the Parr report conducted
almost a decade ago, it does not appear that any follow-up studies were undertaken. During this
interim time, these cultural materials have not fared well. Numerous episodes of destructive
activities, such as grading and agricultural activity, appear to have eliminated any trace of these
sensitive and rather fragile cultural materials.
If artifacts including any rocks, stone bowls, milling equipment or other aboriginal or historic
materials were previously discovered during the mechanical plowing of the grounds, they were
collected to avoid harming the equipment and because of the interest in such materials from the
proprietors and lessees. These materials are likely in the collections of private individuals. Often
stone bowls, milling slabs and hand stones are used to decorate the perimeters of personal residences
in the area. These materials do not normally make their way into the curational facilities at the local
universities nor are they given proper provenience and their scientific value is frequently lost. Other
surface cultural materials may have become more deeply buried due to cultivation practices. It
appears from previous records and discussions with local tenants that the cultural remains previously
identified in the project area had been either collected or destroyed primarily as a result of agricultural
activities.
Project Impacts
Cultural Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.4-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
Historical Resources
Located within the general project area are the Kern River Canal and an occasional remnant of oil
field equipment, which have both been drastically altered from their original form, shape and
character. The Canal has been modified many times, and is barely recognizable as to its original
morphology. Neither of these resources is considered a significant historical resource.
Paleontological Resources
According to Soils Engineering, Inc. in the Geologic Hazards Study prepared for the site, the project
site rests on a considerable thickness of alluvium, identified as Recent Quaternary Fan Deposit.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR prepared in 2002, the possibility exists
that older fossiliferous alluvium may be present six feet below the ground surface. The older
fossiliferious alluvium is considered to have a low to moderate potential for the discovery of fossils.
5.4.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant
to §15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5;
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature; or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
5.4.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate.
Archeological Resources
Impact 5.4.A: The project may potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource.
The on-site field survey conducted in October and November of 2003 and January of 2004 did not
identify any new archaeological sites, and none of the resources previously found in prior
archaeological studies could be located during these site visits. Numerous episodes of destructive
activities, such as grading and agricultural activity, appear to have eliminated any trace of these
sensitive and rather fragile cultural materials. Careful examination of the areas where materials were
identified in previous archaeological studies was conducted but no remnants of any of the sites or
isolates were found. Although no resources were found on the surface, resources could be present
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
underground. Given the substantial concentration of previously recorded archaeological sites and
isolates on the project site, there is a potential for resources to be discovered during grading
excavation activities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in significant
impacts to archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.A.1 Prior to grading plan approval within the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall
attempt to find evidence of the previously recorded sites.
If the qualified archaeologist finds evidence of the previous recorded sites, the
resources shall be evaluated for significance and integrity using the criteria
established in the CEQA Guidelines for unique cultural resources and/or 36 CFR
60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If the
resources are found to be significant, specific measures shall be recommended. In
addition, the grading plans shall state that archaeological monitoring by a qualified
archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall take place during construction
excavation activities at the locations of the 10 cultural sites and 26 isolates that were
previously recorded on the site. The archaeologist shall prepare a summary report of
the monitoring activities and findings. The report shall be submitted to the City of
Bakersfield Planning Department and other appropriate agencies within 10 days of
completion of monitoring.
If the qualified archaeologist does not find evidence of the previous recorded sites,
the grading plans shall state that archaeological monitoring by a qualified
archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall take place during construction
excavation activities at the locations of the 10 cultural sites and 26 isolates that were
previously recorded on the site. The archaeologist shall prepare a summary report of
the monitoring activities and findings. The report shall be submitted to the City of
Bakersfield Planning Department and other appropriate agencies within 10 days of
completion of monitoring.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Historical Resources
Impact 5.4.B: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource.
Located within the general project area are the Kern River Canal and an occasional remnant of oil
field equipment, which have both been drastically altered from their original form, shape and
character. The Canal has been modified many times over, and is barely recognizable as to its original
morphology, and as such is not a good indicator of the historical period in which it was originally
Project Impacts
Cultural Resources West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.4-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
constructed. The oil field equipment is neither unique, nor is considered a significant historical
resource. Both resources are considered to be “non-unique historic resources.” Therefore, the
implementation of the proposed project will not impact historical resources pursuant to Section
15064.5.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Paleontological Resources
Impact 5.4.C: The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.
Implementation of the proposed project may include deep excavations (i.e., greater than six feet)
associated with the construction of the proposed lake, underground utilities, and structural footings.
As a result, implementation of the project may impact the older fossiliferous alluvium which may
contain fossil resources. Therefore, the project could result in potential significant impacts to
paelontological resources.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.C.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that paleontological
monitoring shall take place during construction excavation activities that result in
excavations of six feet below ground surface or greater within the project site.
Following are the specific measures.
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid
removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during
the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-
disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should
immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the
summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository.
• Submit a summary report to the City of Bakersfield. Transfer collected
specimens with copy of report to the repository.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-04 Cultural Resources.doc
Impact 5.4.D: The proposed project could result in the disturbance of human remains.
Due to the substantial concentration of previously recorded archaeological sites and isolates on the
project site, there is a potential for construction activities to disturb human remains. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to human remains.
Mitigation Measures
5.4.D.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that if human remains are
encountered on the project site, the Kern County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted
within 24 hours of the find, and all work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted
until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
5.5 - Geology and Soils
5.5.1 - Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts on the proposed project from the existing geology and
soils conditions on the project site. Information in this section is based on the following documents.
• Geotechnical Feasibility Study / Geological Hazard Study, Soils Engineering Inc., February 5,
2004. The complete report is contained in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices of the
Draft EIR.
• Addendum #1 to Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Geological Hazard Study for the West
Ming Specific Plan (Sections 11, 13, 14 & portions of 10 &15) In Bakersfield, California. The
complete report is contained in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. This document is available for review
at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue in Bakersfield, CA
93301.
5.5.2 - Environmental Setting
Soils and Geology
The majority of the project site is relatively flat and there is no evidence of historic landslides. There
are no bedrock outcrops present within 1 mile of the site. Some lower areas in the western portion of
the project site are utilized as recharge areas. The elevation change across the site is approximately
10 to 15 feet with a slight downhill slope to the southwest. A portion of the Kern River Canal and
recharge basins also traverse the northern portion of the site. The project site rests on a considerable
thickness of alluvium identified as Recent Quaternary Fan Deposits (Qf).
Surface soils within the project site have been classified according to the Unified Soils Classification
System based on 43 test borings drilled at the project site to a maximum depth of 52 feet below
ground surface. Soils at the Project site consist of interbedded silty sand, clayey sand, sandy clay,
poorly graded sand, and well-graded sand overlying bedrock. The surface soils are in a loose to
medium-dense condition and are typical of the south west area of Bakersfield. Soils encountered in
the top 5 feet on site indicate that highly expansive soil will not be encountered on the project site.
Faulting and Seismicity
The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No active faults are located
within the site boundaries or adjacent properties. A subsurface oil field defined fault is located within
the southeast portion of the project site and is considered inactive. Active faults which have the most
potential to produce ground shaking at the Project site are listed in Table 5.5-1 below with the closest
fault being: Kern Front Fault (15.4 kilometers (9.6 miles) northwest). Estimated peak ground
accelerations at the project site are based mainly on fault distance and magnitude. Therefore, faults
which are closest to the site or have large maximum credible magnitudes or both are included in
Project Impacts
Geology and Soils West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.5-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
Table 5.5-1 below. The White Wolf and San Andreas Faults have produced the majority of the
seismic activity in the area of the project site, and the largest estimated historical site acceleration at
the project site is 0.235g from a 7.7 magnitude earthquake on the White Wolf Fault in July 1952. The
closest earthquake to the site was approximately 19 kilometers (12 miles) away at a magnitude of 5.2
in May 1993.
It is not likely that ground rupture would occur at this site since it is not located within 500 feet (0.095
mile) of a known active fault trace. No Seismic Source Type A faults are within 5 kilometers (3.1
miles) of the project site which are capable of producing large magnitude events of greater than or
equal to earthquakes of 7.0 magnitude and a slip rate of 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) or less per year.
Likewise, no Seismic Source Type B earthquake faults are located within 10 kilometers of the site
which would produce earthquake events greater than or equal to 7.0 magnitude and a slip rate of less
than 5 millimeters annually, or an earthquake magnitude of less than 7.0 and a slip rate greater than 2
millimeters (0.08 inches) annually, or a magnitude greater than or equal to 6.5 and a slip rate less than
2 millimeters annually. The nearest Seismic Source Type B fault is the White Wolf Fault located
approximately 26.7 kilometers (16.6 miles) away. The nearest Seismic Source Type A fault is the
San Andreas Fault which is approximately 47.4 kilometers (29.5 miles) away. The Project site is in
Seismic Zone 4, pursuant to the California Building Code, based on its location to the other know
active faults.
Table 5.5-1 shows that the estimated maximum peak ground acceleration at the site would be 0.24g
from a 6.3 magnitude earthquake on the Kern Front Fault. A 7.2 magnitude earthquake on the White
Wolf Fault would result in an estimated ground motion of 0.233g at the site. A maximum probable
earthquake of magnitude 7.8 on the San Andreas Fault would create a peak site ground acceleration of
0.168g at the site.
Table 5.5-1: Active Faults Within the Project Area
Fault
Approximate
Distance
(Kilometers/Miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude (Mw)1
Maximum Peak
Ground Acceleration
Gravity (g)
Estimated
Site Intensity
(MM)2
Seismic
Source
Type
Kern Front 15.4/9.6 6.3 0.246 IX C
White Wolf 28.4/17.6 7.2 0.233 IX B
Pleito Thrust 41.9/26 7.2 0.152 VIII B
San Andreas (1857 Rupture
& Carrizo)
47.4/29.5 7.2 to 7.8 0.110 to 0.168 VII to VIII A
Big Pine 57.6/35.8 6.7 0.059 VI B
Garlock (West) 59.2/36.8 7.1 0.078 VII A
San Gabriel 72.4/45 7.0 0.056 VI B
San Juan 76.2/47.4 7.0 0.053 VI B
1 Richter Scale Magnitude
2 Mercale Scale Intensity
Source: Soils Engineering, Incorporated, 2004
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
Liquefaction
According to the Kern County Water Maps (Kern County Water Agency 2003), the depth to the
unconfined aquifer in the fall of 2000 was approximately 80 feet below ground surface. Shallow
groundwater was not encountered in the top 51 feet below ground surface in the 43 test borings
conducted in 2004 by SEI. Limited perched water can be present in areas of heavy irrigation, septic
systems and recharge areas. Based on the soil types present and lack of shallow groundwater, the
liquefaction potential for most of the site is considered low. Due to the presence of water in the
northwestern portion of the site in 2005, SEI conducted , a liquefaction analysis on soil samples
collected from soil boring B12-A, which was taken from the northwest corner of the project site.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 15 feet below ground surface at that location, and
subsurface soils were classified as sandy silt. SEI determined that the soils in the northwestern
portion of the site are potentially liquefiable between 15 feet and 17.5 feet below ground surface. SEI
indicated that normal groundwater levels are greater than 50 below ground surface, however,
groundwater was present at higher elevations due to the substantial amount of surface water in the
Kern River and in the recharge ponds in that location.
Settlement
A settlement analysis was prepared by SEI in April 2005. The analysis states that the total dry sand
settlement calculated for the top 15 feet of soil is 0.441 and settlement was 0.34 inches for the
saturated zone between 15 feet and 40 feet for a total settlement of 0.781 inches. According to SEI,
0.781 inches of settlement is considered very minor. In addition, the amount of settlement in the
potentially liquefiable zone between 15 and 17.5 feet was 0.06.
5.5.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
- 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.
- Strong seismic ground shaking;
- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
- Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
Project Impacts
Geology and Soils West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.5-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
• 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;
• 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; or
• 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 waste water.
5.5.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have the potential to expose people and structures to seismic ground
shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, and unstable soils, Following is a discussion of the project
impacts that correspond to the thresholds previously identified in Section 5.5.3.
Impact 5.5.A: The proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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; Strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-
related ground failure including liquefaction; and landslides.
The project will change the use of the project site from agricultural, vacant, and oil production uses to
urban uses. During periods of construction, there will be temporary increases in human activity on
the project site from the presence of construction crews. Over the long-term, there will be a
permanent increase in the level of human activity on the project site. The increased levels of human
activity of the project site will increase the potential exposure of persons living and working on the
project site to seismic events including risk of loss, injury, and death related to earthquakes and
related hazards which are described as follows:
Fault Rupture
Although the project site is within the vicinity of several active faults, it is not located within an
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone, and no Seismic Source Type A or B earthquake faults are within
proximity to the project site which could produce potentially significant impacts on site. The project
site is located within Seismic Zone 4 of the 2001 California Building Code, and the California
Building Code contains criteria for building design related to Seismic Zone 4 which can be
incorporated into project design and will reduce impacts to onsite structures related to earthquake
events. These criteria include setbacks from the high pressure lines currently located on the project
site. The nearest Seismic Source Type A fault is the San Andreas Fault, located 29.5 miles from the
site, and would be considered potentially significant if located within 15 miles of the project site.
Likewise, the nearest Seismic Source Type B fault is the White Wolf Fault, located 17.6 miles from
the project site, and would be considered potentially significant if located within 10 miles of the
project site. Furthermore, the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone is approximately 15.4
kilometers (9.6 miles) northeast and will not significantly affect the use of the project site. Therefore,
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
the adverse effects from a rupture of a known active earthquake fault at this site are less than
significant.
Seismic Ground Shaking
In the event of an earthquake on one of the nearby faults (see Table 5.5-1), it is likely that the project
site will experience ground shaking and exposing people and structures associated with the project to
ground shaking, as well as the existing high pressure petroleum and gas lines. The Design-basis
Earthquake ground motion for the project site is estimated at 0.27g based on the proximity and
potential earthquake magnitude of the closest known active fault. An estimated ground motion of
0.235g occurred at the site from a 7.7 magnitude earthquake on the White Wolf Fault in July 1952;
and, the White Wolf Fault has produced most of the historical earthquakes in the vicinity of the
project site. Based on the estimated ground motion, the site is in a Seismic Zone 4 and will require
structural design incorporated in building plans for individual projects meeting the requirements of
the California Building Code related to Seismic Zone 4. With these requirements, the site preparation
and structural foundations will be built to withstand 0.27g at the project site from an earthquake on
the nearest faults. Improvement plans will be reviewed by the City of Bakersfield during site plan
review for individual projects built within the Specific Plan to ensure that the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Engineer (SEI 2004) are included in project design. Likewise structural setbacks from
the high pressure lines present on the project site will be enforced during the City of Bakersfield site
plan review process. This will ensure that the structures will withstand most earthquake events and
the existing high-pressure lines located on the project site will not impact the proposed uses.
Therefore, seismic ground shaking on the project site is considered less than significant.
Seismically-Induced Ground Failure and Landslides
There is a low potential for rock fall and landslides to impact the site in the event of a major
earthquake (SEI 2004). Based on the predicted maximum horizontal accelerations at the project site
and the soil types identified by SEI (2004), minor subsurface settlement may occur on site during a
major earthquake, and this is considered less than significant.
Ground failure from liquefaction could occur in the northwestern area of the project site where the
recharge areas are currently located. This is due to the granular (non-cohesive) consistency of the
soils and the presence of a potentially high groundwater table. The results of the liquefaction analysis
for this area (SEI 2005) indicates that the soils in the northwestern area are potentially liquefiable
between 15 feet and 17.5 feet below ground surface and are non-liquefiable below a depth of 17.5
below ground surface. Therefore, implementation of the project in the northwestern portion of the
site could be significantly affected by liquefaction. The remainder of the site would not be subject to
liquefaction impacts due to the depth of groundwater of more than 50 feet below ground surface.
Seismically-Induced Flooding
The potential for earthquake-induced flooding at the site appears to be very low (SEI 2004). In
addition, the project includes the extension of the existing levee along Ming Avenue to eliminate the
Project Impacts
Geology and Soils West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.5-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
potential for flooding to occur on the project site during a 100-year flood event. The implementation
of the proposed levee will reduce the potential for seismically-induced flooding to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
5.5.A.1 Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other
development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs
first, the project applicant shall conduct additional liquefaction studies in the
northwestern corner of the project site (i.e., in the vicinity of the existing recharge
ponds) during recharge periods to fully evaluate liquefaction impacts on specific
development projects in this area of the site. Based on the findings of these studies,
site specific designs shall be incorporated in the grading and building plans to reduce
onsite liquefaction impacts. The scope of the liquefaction studies, findings, and
recommendations to reduce liquefaction shall be reviewed and require approval by
the City of Bakersfield Public Works and Building Departments prior to grading and
building plan approvals.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.B: The proposed project could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
During the construction phase of the project, activities such as grading and construction will disrupt
surface vegetation and soils and will expose these disturbed areas to erosion by wind and water. The
proposed project will be developed in phases and portions of the project site will have disturbed areas
while other portions will be under current agricultural and oil activities or will have already been
converted to the land uses proposed in the West Ming Specific Plan. Erosion during construction
activities could be significant.
In the long-term and after construction activities have been completed on the project site, the ground
surface will have impermeable surfaces as well as permeable surfaces. The impermeable surfaces
will include roadways, driveways, parking lots, pavement treatment surrounding homes, as well as the
home and building sites. The permeable surfaces will include landscape areas as well as the
detention/retention basins. Landscaping will stabilize the permeable areas while the
detention/retention basins are designed to retain soils. Overall, development of the project would not
result in conditions where substantial surface soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion.
Therefore, the project site would experience less than significant long-term impacts from water and
wind erosion and loss of top soil.
Mitigation Measures
5.5.B.1 Prior to grading plan approval, an erosion control plan for construction activities that
describe the best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
potential for soil erosion and loss of top soil. The erosion control plan shall be
submitted to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department for review and
approval. The BMPs could include soil stabilizers and silt fencing as well as other
measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.C: The proposed project is not 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.
There is no evidence of landslides on the project site, and the project site is not located in an unstable
geologic unit or on soil that is considered unstable. A settlement analysis was prepared by SEI in
April 2005. The analysis states that the total dry sand settlement calculated for the top 15 feet of soil
is 0.441 and settlement was 0.34 inches for the saturated zone between 15 feet and 40 feet for a total
settlement of 0.781 inches. According to SEI, 0.781 inches of settlement is considered very minor
and less than significant. In addition, the amount of settlement in the potentially liquefiable zone
between 15 and 17.5 feet was 0.06 which is also considered less than significant.
The potential for hydro-collapse was also evaluated by SEI. According to SEI’s findings, the
potential for hydro-collapse is low when land has be irrigated. Because the project site has been
farmed since the 1970s, the potential for hydro-collapse is low and considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.5.D: The proposed project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would not creating substantial risks to life or
property.
Based on the type of soils encountered in the top 5 feet of soil at the 43 exploratory borings conducted
on the project site, SEI determined that it is likely that no significant areas of highly expansive soils
will be encountered. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impacts related to expansive soils.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
Geology and Soils West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.5-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-05 Geology and Soils.doc
Impact 5.5.E: The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems; therefore, the proposed project would not be affected by the soil
capability of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed. The project will include
lateral connections to City of Bakersfield sewer mainlines. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impacts.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.6.1 - Introduction
Information in this section is based upon the following documents and correspondence received on
the Notice of Preparation:
• Hazardous Materials Evaluation, April 2005, McIntosh and Associates. The complete report is
contained in Appendix G of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• Natural Resources Impact Report, June 1, 2004, Claude David Fiddler. The complete report is
contained in Appendix H of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002, City of Bakersfield. This document is
available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department located at 1715 Chester
Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.
• National Fire Hazard Disclosure Map, June 2000. California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. This map is available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at
1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301 and at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/ab6/nhd15.pdf
The hazards and hazardous materials that are discussed include potential threats to human health and
safety that may result from hazards located below ground, at the ground surface, and in the air.
Hazardous materials are hazardous substances and hazardous waste. A material is defined as
“hazardous” if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a Federal, State, or local
regulatory agency or if it has characteristics defined as “hazardous” by these agencies. A “hazardous
waste” is a “solid waste” that has toxic or hazardous characteristics. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency has defined the term “solid waste” to include many types of
discarded materials, including: any gaseous. Liquid, semi-liquid, or solid material which is discarded
or has served its intended purpose, unless the material is specifically excluded from regulation. Such
materials are considered waste whether they are discarded, reused, recycled, or reclaimed.
5.6.2 - Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials Database Search
Two separate database searches were conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. in February
2003 and October 2003 for the project site. The database searches included a review of federal, state,
and local government records including the Cortese Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List. The
sites identified on the Cortese list are those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
The searches were conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. Based on the searches, there are no
hazardous materials sites that are located on the project site that are on the Cortese list.
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Agricultural Activities
Pesticides and Chemicals. The majority of the project site has been used as agricultural land in
which agricultural chemicals have been used, from the early 1970s to present, as indicated by records
and historical aerial photographs. The majority of the project site has included the application of
pesticides, herbicides, and associated metals, which may be present in near surface soils at residual
concentrations of concern. Although no pesticides or chemicals have been stored, permits to apply
pesticides and chemicals to the crops have been secured and recorded for agricultural uses in all
sections of the project site. In Kern County, a farmer must receive a “Restricted Materials Permit” to
apply chemicals to the crops, and the Kern County Department of Agriculture office monitors the
application by permits, to ensure that the chemicals are applied within regulations.
Asbestos. The onsite agricultural activities include subsurface irrigation piping to provide water to
the crops. It is possible that Asbestos Containing Materials could be present in the subsurface
irrigation piping on the project site.
Water Wells. The agricultural activities on the project site also included one idle water well, two
former water wells, and eight active water wells. The active water wells include aboveground diesel
tanks and diesel generators/pumps. Some of these tanks/generators/pumps have had minor leakage or
spills; none of which appear to be major.
Oilfield Activities
The project site has been used for oil exploration and oil production activities from the 1930’s to
present. The project site lies within the northern administrative boundaries of the Canfield Ranch Oil
Field. There have been 77 exploratory oil wells drilled on the project site. As of 2003, there were 44
abandoned oil wells, 14 idle oil wells, one active water disposal well, and 18 active oil wells located
on the project site. The oil exploration holes are likely to have drilling and/or oil production sumps
which may contain oily drilling fluids mixed with loosely compacted soils. There were multiple areas
with aboveground storage tanks, petroleum piping and small sumps where there is minor to
substantial surface staining which may extend to unknown depths in some locations on the site.
According to the Kern County Water Agency, the depth to the groundwater at the project site is
approximately 110 to 140 feet. Although no groundwater testing has occurred on the project site,
contamination of groundwater has been known to occasionally occur in oilfield sumps. There are
abandoned oil wells on the project site that were abandoned in accordance with state regulations at
the time of abandonment; however, these wells may not meet the current California Division of Oil,
Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations.
Pipelines
Petroleum pipelines, high-pressure natural gas pipelines, and smaller transfer petroleum piping are
present on the project site. Two major petroleum lines traverse the project site from the southwest to
the northeast south of the Kern River Canal. The Pacific Pipeline Petroleum Line is adjacent to the
Kern River Canal and the Shell Petroleum Pipeline is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Kern River Canal. Two Pacific Gas and Electric natural gas pipelines traverse northwest to southeast
through the project site. A Southern California Gas (SCG) Pipeline traverses north to south along the
eastern boundary of Section 11 and connects to the SCG substation located south of and adjacent to
the Kern River Canal. SCG also has a pipeline located along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks
near Buena Vista Road. Smaller transfer petroleum piping is also located on the project site that
connects to existing onsite oil facilities.
Flooding and the Kern River
The Kern River is located adjacent to the northwest portion of the project site. According to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, portions of the project site north
of the Kern River Canal are located within areas that are subject to the 100-year flood event. The
remaining areas on the project site are designated as areas of minimal flooding of the Kern River.
The Lake Isabella Dam is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site, and has a
capacity to hold 570,000 acre feet of water when filled to maximum capacity. The flow of the Kern
River is influenced mainly by the operation of the Lake Isabella Dam and Reservoir. During very wet
years, water flows in the river southwest to the Buena Vista Lake Bed and then north to Tulare Lake
or into the California Aqueduct near Tupman.
The project site is located within the Lake Isabella Dam Failure Inundation area, and it would take 8
hours for waters released from the Lake Isabella Dam, should it fail, to reach the project site. The
existing Flood Evacuation Plan for the City of Bakersfield provides for the protection of health,
safety, welfare of the people, and property through evacuation of areas that would be inundated,
including the project site.
Electrical Transformers
There are pole-mounted electrical transformers located within Section 10, 11, and 13. These
transformers may have contained PCBs in the past. No staining was evident beneath the
transformers, but leakage may have occurred historically at these locations on the site.
Wildfire
According to the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the Bakersfield Fire
Department and the Kern County Fire Department has not identified a specific fire hazard area in the
vicinity of the project site. In addition, based on a review of the National Fire Hazard Disclosure map
prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not located
within or adjacent to a Wildland Fire Area or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Railroad
The San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR) Buttonwillow Branch line is located adjacent to and south
of the project site. According to the SJVRR, two train operations (one outbound and one inbound
trip) operate on the Buttonwillow Branch.
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
5.6.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials;
• 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;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; or
• 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.
5.6.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have the potential to expose people to hazardous wastes resulting from
pesticides and chemicals from agricultural activities, oilfield facilities, and PCBs from pole-mounted
electrical transformers. Following is a discussion of the project impacts that correspond to the
thresholds of significance previously identified in Section 5.6.3.
Future Construction Activities
Impact 5.6.A: The proposed project could result in exposing residents, visitors and construction
personnel to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials during construction activities.
Grading and construction activities may involve limited transport, storage, usage, or disposal of
hazardous materials, such as the fueling/servicing of construction equipment. This activity would be
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
considered short-term periods during the buildout of the project site. This short-term activity would
be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. Because the construction
activities are required to comply with the applicable regulations and laws pertaining to the transport,
storage, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials associated with the project, health
hazards from construction activities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Future Residential Activities
Impact 5.6.B: The proposed residential uses could result in exposing onsite and offsite residents
and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
The proposed project includes residential uses that will increase the transport, use, storage, and
disposal of common household hazardous waste, such as household cleaning and janitorial products,
herbicides, insecticides, solvents, and fuel. Kern County operates a household hazardous waste
collection and reuse facility at 4951 Standard Street in Bakersfield, which allows residents to deliver
and dispose of their household hazardous wastes. Because residential uses are normally associated
with small quantities of common hazardous waste, less than significant health hazards would occur
from household hazardous waste generated by the proposed residential uses.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Future Commercial and Industrial Activities
Impact 5.6.C: The proposed commercial and industrial uses could result in exposing residents
and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
The proposed project includes commercial and industrial uses that will increase the transport, use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. There is a wide variety of hazardous materials that
could be associated with the proposed onsite commercial and industrial uses including insecticides,
petroleum products, paints, cleaners, and chemicals. All hazardous materials would be required to be
transported, used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
laws and regulations. Adherence to the applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential
health hazards to less than significant.
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Future Recreational Lake Maintenance Activities
Impact 5.6.D: The proposed recreational lake could result in exposing residents and visitors to
health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The proposed project includes a five-acre recreational lake on the project site. The onsite lake could
require the use of phosphate fertilizers to control the nutrient levels. The lake may also require
treatment with acidic (alum) and/or alkaline (lime) materials as determined by the chemistry of the
lake water. Dyes such as Aquashade may be applied in order to limit photosynthesis. Pesticides such
as algaecides, herbicides, and insecticides, may be applied in order to kill a target organism.
Pesticides commonly used include copper based chemicals, endothall based chemicals, and
dichlobenil based chemicals. Oxidizers, sterilizers, and disinfectants such as potassium permanganate
and hydrogen peroxide may be applied. In addition, control of certain emergent insects and other
aquatic pests may also occur. All hazardous materials used as part of the management of the lake
would be required to be transported, used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Adherence to the applicable laws and regulations would
minimize the potential health hazards to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Future Pesticide Use for Farming Activities
Impact 5.6.E: Pesticide use from agricultural activities onsite and offsite could result in exposing
residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials.
As development occurs on the project site, other areas of the site could continue to be used for
farming. In addition, areas surrounding the project site could be used for farming. Farming activities
could involve pesticide use and because pesticide use near sensitive uses such as residences, schools,
hospitals, and outdoor eating areas is potentially harmful to humans, it is strictly regulated. The
County of Kern enforces the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides through existing regulations.
These regulations include a pesticide permitting process that controls the time and location of using
pesticides. Buffer zones are established around non-agricultural land uses. Adherence to these
existing regulations would reduce potential health hazards associated with pesticide use from
agricultural activities to less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Future Oil and Gas Activities
Impact 5.6.F: Oil and gas activities could continue on the project site and could result in
exposing residents and visitors to health hazards from the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
Oil and gas activities on the project site will continue operate on portions of the project site. These
activities could include operation of oil wells, drilling new wells, use of above ground storage tanks,
use of existing petroleum and gas pipelines as well as the establishment of new pipelines, use of
existing and new sumps to contain potential spills, and operation of the existing natural gas
substations. The transport, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials associated with oil
activities could result in potential health hazards to adjoining sensitive land uses. These oil activities
could result in potential significant health hazard impacts.
Mitigation Measures
5.6.F.1 Prior to site plan approval, applicant shall provide evidence that future active oil
wells and associated equipment will meet the California Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources regulations and public health and safety regulations, or
provide other assurances that residents and visitors will not be exposed to health
hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, prior to
development of affected portions of the project
5.6.F.2 Prior to grading plan approval where there is an existing drilling and/or production
operations of exploration oil wells and including disposal wells, the project applicant
shall have the locations surveyed, located, and marked by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. A map shall be furnished to the
Office of Environmental Services showing how all existing petroleum related
facilities will be protected and integrated into the proposed development. The
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources and the City of
Bakersfield development standards shall be met.
5.6.F.3 Prior to grading plan approval, all drilling and production activities shall be subject to
all fire and safety regulations as required by the Bakersfield City Fire Department.
The City Code 15.66.040 and 15.66.080 Well Site Development Standards Setback
states that no petroleum well shall be drilled nor shall any storage tank and other
production related structures be located within:
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
• 75 Feet of the right-of way of any dedicated public street, highway, railroad or
private street, or adopted specific plan line of any street or highway;
• No streets may be constructed within 75 feet of any oil well unless it has been
properly abandoned;
• 100 Feet of any building including dwellings, except buildings incidental to the
operation of the well;
• 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors which include residential area, schools, daycare
centers, hospital, convalescent homes and other large immobile populations;
• 300 Feet of any public assembly;
• 25 Feet of a storage tank or boilers, fired heaters, open flame devices or other
sources of ignition;
• A solid masonry wall 8 feet high shall encompass the entire well site. Two gates,
as nearly opposite as possible to each other shall be installed;
• Pipelines utilized for all petroleum related operations shall be buried a minimum of
3 feet below grade.
The Pipeline Development Policy of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department is as
follows:
• No habitable portion of a structure may be built within 50 Feet of a gas main, or
transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover;
• No structure may be within 40 Feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined
product, with 48 inches or more of cover;
• No habitable portion of a structure may be built within 30 Feet of a crude oil
pipeline operation at 20% of it’s design strength;
• Prior to or concurrently with filing of a final map, a covenant shall be recorded on
all lots of this tract, or portion thereof, which are within 250 Feet of any gas
transmission lines. Covenant shall acknowledge proximity of pipeline easement to
said property and describe the name, type and dimension of the pipeline. Prior to
recordation, the subdivider shall submit and obtain approval of covenant wording
with the City Attorney, Office of Environmental Services and City Engineer.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Past Oil and Gas Activities
Impact 5.6.G: Past oil and gas activities could create hazards to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
The project site has been used for oil exploration and oil production activities as well as natural gas
activities since the 1930’s. These activities also include diesel generator pumps for oil and water
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
wells. Historic oil drilling activities and the use of pumps on the project site has resulted in oil
contaminated soil. There are multiple onsite areas with aboveground storage tanks, generator pumps,
petroleum piping, and small sumps where the soil is stained. Unrefined oil contains a variety of
hazardous constituents, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), benzene, toluene, xylene,
ethylbenzene and heavy metals. Implementation of the proposed project could expose future
residents and visitors of the project site to health hazards related to past oil and gas activities.
Mitigation Measures
5.6.G.1 Prior to recordation of a final map, any abandoned and idle wells within the grading
envelope shall have the surface area returned to its natural condition including but not
limited to cleaning all oil, oil residues, drilling fluids, mud and other substances;
leveling, grading or filling of sumps, ditches, and cellars including removal of all
lining material to the satisfaction of the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources.
5.6.G.2 Prior to recordation of a final map, all stained soils observed within the grading
envelope near the active water wells, idle water wells, and former water wells shall
be shall be tested. If the soils are found to be hazardous, the soils shall be disposed
of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The applicant
shall provide the City with evidence that any hazardous soils found onsite have been
disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws.
5.6.G.3 Prior to recordation of final map, a written verification shall be obtained from the
Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources that abandoned wells within the
grading envelope were properly abandoned pursuant to their regulations. The written
verification shall be submitted to the City.
5.6.G.4 Prior to recordation of final map, any lot or parcel within the grading envelope
containing an abandoned well shall be encumbered with a deed restriction specifying
the exact location of said well and prohibiting any construction within said 10 feet of
an abandoned oil well. This is required by the City Municipal Code 15.66.080,
Development encroachment in petroleum areas.
5.6.G.5 Prior to recordation of a final map, information on the location of the pipelines and
any information regarding safety concerns of these pipelines shall be provided to the
Bakersfield City Fire Department. Prior to grading activities, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company and/or any other company with pipelines running through the
affected portions of the project site shall be notified of the construction activity
within the corresponding easement. If any pipelines have any problems or if a
pipeline is ruptured during development, the Bakersfield City Fire Department shall
be notified.
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
5.6.G.6 If during grading and construction, a pipeline accident occurs or potential unknown
buried hazardous materials are found, and/or if unidentified materials are discovered
in the testing of the soil, health and safety procedures shall be implemented. These
procedures shall include, at a minimum, emergency medical, evacuation of the site
and/or threatened area, and notification action. Notification shall include but not be
limited to the following agencies: The City of Bakersfield, Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC), Bakersfield City and/or County Fire Department, and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Evacuation and determination
regarding the type of contamination encountered and best course of action would be
determined by the ranking official and the required mediation measures shall be
implemented.
5.6.G.7 Prior to grading and building plan approvals, the grading and building plans shall
state that all work will stop immediately if any unknown odorous or discolored soil
or other possible hazardous materials arise during any part of the testing, grading, or
construction on the project site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Past Pesticide Use for Agricultural Activities
Impact 5.6.H: Past agricultural activities could create hazards to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Past uses of pesticides and chemicals associated with agricultural operations can leave measurable
residues in soils. The majority of the project site has been used as agricultural land in which
agricultural chemicals have been used from the early 1970s to present. The majority of the project
site has included the application of pesticides, herbicides, and associated metals, which may be
present in near surface soils at residual concentrations of concern. Potential hazard impacts from the
past application of chemicals to the majority of the site are considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures
5.6.H.1 Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other
development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs
first, soil testing shall be performed on the lands within the grading envelope to
determine the level of residue for pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, and associated
metals. If residue is found to be within acceptable amounts per the Kern County
Environmental Health Department (KCEHD) and Environmental Protection
Agency/Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) standards then grading and
construction may begin. If the residue is found to be greater than the KCEHD and
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
DTSC standards, all contaminated soils exceeding the acceptable limits shall be
remediated and/or properly disposed of per KCEHD and DTSC requirements. An
appropriate verification closure letter from KCEHD and DTSC shall be obtained and
submitted to the City of Bakersfield. Depending on the extent of contaminated soils,
a verification closure letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board may also need to be submitted to the City of Bakersfield. Site remediation can
occur by the use of on-site transportable thermal treatment units or bio-remediation.
The soil can also be excavated and shipped off-site to fixed incineration or bio-
remediation facilities. The preliminary report shall be submitted with said
application. The report, findings and recommendations shall be submitted for
approval by the Fire Department, prior to recordation of a final map or approval of a
development plan.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Past Installation of Irrigation Piping
Impact 5.6.I: Past agricultural activities included the installation of irrigation piping. The piping
could include asbestos containing materials that could create hazards to the public
or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
The onsite agricultural activities include subsurface irrigation piping to provide water to the crops
grown on the project site. It is possible that Asbestos Containing Materials could be present in the
subsurface irrigation piping on the project site. Potential hazard impacts resulting from the potential
presence of asbestos are considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
5.6.I.1 Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other
development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs
first the onsite subsurface irrigation piping within the grading envelope shall be
tested to determine if Asbestos Containing Materials are present in the piping. If
Asbestos Containing Materials are present, a plan shall be prepared to identify how
the piping will be removed and disposed of during grading activities. The applicant
shall provide the City with evidence that any piping with Asbestos Containing
Materials was disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. The
preliminary report shall be submitted with said application. The report, findings and
recommendations shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department, prior to
recordation of a final map or approval of a development plan.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Electrical Transformers
Impact 5.6.J: Onsite electrical transformers may have contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
that could create hazards to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
There are pole-mounted electrical transformers on the project site in sections 10, 11, and 13 that may
have contained PCBs in the past. No staining was observed beneath the onsite transformers;
however, leakage containing PCBs may have occurred historically at these locations on the site,
which is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
5.6.J.1 Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other
development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs
first, the soils beneath the existing pole-mounted transformers within the grading
envelope shall be tested. If the soils are found to be hazardous, the soils shall be
disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The
applicant shall provide the City with evidence that any hazardous soils found onsite
have been disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. The
preliminary report shall be submitted with said application. The report, findings and
recommendations shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department, prior to
recordation of a final map or approval of a development plan.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Sensitive Receptors
Impact 5.6.K: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to emit hazardous
emissions or involve the handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors.
The proposed project includes the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational
uses. The project also includes the implementation of four elementary schools and one junior high
school on the project site. The industrial uses are anticipated to include the continuing use of a
portion of the project site for oil exploration and production activities. There are health concerns
when oil field operations are in close proximity to sensitive receptors such as residences and schools.
These concerns are related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials or waste. Depending on various factors such as amount of hazardous emissions or waste as
well as the proximity of the sensitive receptors to the generators, a health risk assessment may be
required to assess potential health risks associated with emissions generators. The potential emissions
from future industrial uses and the oil field operations may result in significant health risks to
sensitive receptors.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Michael Brandman Associates 5.6-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
Mitigation Measures
5.6.K.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the handling and storage of hazardous and acutely
hazardous materials shall be restricted to less than threshold planning quantities
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors which include residential areas, schools,
daycare centers, hospital, convalescent homes and other large immobile populations.
Sensitive receptors shall not be approved within zones of cancer risk identified by a
health risk assessment of greater than 10 in 1,000,000.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Listed Hazardous Sites
Impact 5.6.L: The proposed project is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Based on the two separate database searches that were conducted for the project site, there are no
hazardous materials sites that are located on the project site that are on the Cortese list. The sites
identified on the Cortese list are those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the
environment related to existing listed hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan
Impact 5.6.M: Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
The project will introduce a new on-site population that would be subject to emergency evacuation or
response in the event of a major disaster. The project includes a circulation plan that would allow the
onsite population to evacuate in the event of an emergency. The provision of the onsite circulation
plan, which is in conformance with the City’s circulation standards, would result in no impact on the
impairment or interference with the implementation of the City’s emergency evacuation and support
services procedures in the event of a natural disaster or war emergency.
The project site is located within the Lake Isabella Dam Failure Inundation area. Implementation of
the proposed project would result in the construction of structures within the Inundation area,
Project Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.6-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-06 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.doc
increasing the risk of damage to structures in the event of flooding from dam failure or Kern River
flooding.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, flooding of the project site due to dam
failure would take approximately 8 hours. The existing Flood Evacuation Plan for the City of
Bakersfield includes procedures for the protection of health, safety, welfare of the people and
property for potential dam inundation areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would experience a less than significant impact due to dam inundation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Risks and Accidents
Impact 5.6.N: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and the risk of accidents associated
with population exposure to rail operations.
Wildfire
Because the Bakersfield Fire Department and the Kern County Fire Department has not identified a
specific fire hazard area in the vicinity of the project site and the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection has not designated the vicinity of the project site as a Wildland Fire Area or a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the implementation of the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts related to wildland fires.
Railroad Operations
The SVRR Buttonwillow Branch line which is located adjacent to and south of the project site has
two train operations per day. The close proximity of the project site to a railroad track could expose
future populations on the project site to accidents involving trains. However, since the existing tracks
in the project vicinity do not have curves and due to the relatively few train operations (i.e., one
inbound and one outbound) occurring each day, the risks of accidents are considered low and would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
5.7.1 - Introduction
This section of the Draft EIR includes information related to surface water hydrology, flooding,
groundwater, and water quality. Preparation of this section of the Draft EIR conforms to the
recommendations contained in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and evaluates additional
information specific to the project site. This section is based upon the following documents.
• Flood Study, McIntosh and Associates, May 12, 2005. The complete report is contained in
Appendix I of the Technical Appendices of the DEIR.
• West Ming Specific Plan Lake Report, McIntosh and Associates, August 2005. The complete
report is contained in Appendix I of the Technical Appendices of the DEIR.
• Hazardous Materials Evaluation, April 2005, McIntosh and Associates. The complete report is
contained in Appendix G of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• Addendum #1 to Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Geological Hazard Study for the West
Ming Specific Plan (Sections 11, 13, 14 & portions of 10 &15) In Bakersfield, California. The
complete report is contained in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. This document is available for review
at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue in Bakersfield, CA
93301.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Final EIR, June 2002. This document is available for
review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue in Bakersfield,
CA 93301.
5.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Conditions
The project site is located within the Kern River watershed. The Kern River drains an approximately
2,420 square mile area in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Water runoff from the Sierras flows
northeast to southwest and enters the San Joaquin Valley through the Kern River Canyon. The Kern
River currently has a regulated flow due to the Isabella Dam and Reservoir. The primary purpose of
the dam is flood control with the ability to hold back approximately 570,000 acre-feet of water in the
reservoir. Downstream of the Kern River Canyon, there are seven diversion weirs in the Bakersfield
area. During very wet years, water flows in the river to Buena Vista Lake Bed and then north to
Tulare Lake or into the California Aqueduct (City of Bakersfield 2002 GPEIR p.4.8-1).
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area is located above a series of aquifers. These aquifers
are part of the larger groundwater basin called the Southern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. The
Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.7-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
primary groundwater aquifer below the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is made up of unconsolidated
sediments (City of Bakersfield 2002 GP V-16).
Surface Water Hydrology and Drainage
The natural drainage of the project site is generally to the southwest, along and parallel to the main
drainage channel of the Kern River. Relief across the site is fairly gentle, with only minor variations
in elevation, which do not concentrate flows on the project site. The project site does not currently
contribute surface flows off-site. The only natural drainage feature in the vicinity of the project site is
the Kern River, which is located adjacent to the northwestern portion of the project site. The Kern
River consists of primary and secondary floodways: The primary floodway is the minimum channel
area required to contain a 100-year flood flow of 10,200 cubic feet per second (cfs); and, the
secondary floodway is the area where floods would occur if various flood structures, such as dikes or
levees, were to fail. The project site is traversed by a portion of the Kern River Canal, as discussed
below. The nearest water bodies are as follows: Buena Vista Lake is located approximately 8 miles
southwest of the site and Lake Isabella is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the site. The
Pacific Ocean is located approximately 70 miles southwest of the site.
The Kern River Canal is the only major surface water feature existing on the project site. It is a
concrete lined, trapezoidal channel that conveys water across the site. It enters the project site near
the northeast corner and flows southwesterly, exiting the project area approximately 4,000-feet south
of the extension of Ming Avenue. The Kern River Canal runs parallel to the Kern River Channel in a
northeast to southwest direction. The Kern River Canal crosses Allen Road and the dirt road
extension of South. Renfro Road and is present within the northern portion of the project site, north
of White Lane. This canal is operated by the City of Bakersfield and is contracted to deliver water to
the Buena Vista Water Storage District for 6 months of the year. The canal is empty the remaining
six months. There are no documented cases or recorded floods for the project area along the Kern
River Canal. An abandoned canal, the former James Canal, is located just north of White Lane,
which crosses South Allen Road, traversing from southwest to northeast.
Flooding
Kern River
Due to the proximity of the project site, topography, and current levee system, a portion of the project
site is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) as being within the 100-year frequency flood zone (see Exhibit 5.7-1). Exhibit 5.7-
1 shows the northwest portion of the site, north of the Kern River Canal as well as a small area in the
southwest portion of the site as currently within a FEMA Zone A which is defined as an area within a
100-year flood. The remainder of the project site is located in FEMA Zone B which is an area of
500-year flood and FEMA Zone C which is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain.
FEMA requires a Letter of Map Revision for development within Zone A in order to remove
requirements for flood insurance, which includes a flood study and plans for levee construction.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
An existing levee system is parallel to the Kern River. The existing levee is located along Ming
Avenue adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. The levee extends from Stockdale
Highway and terminates approximately one mile west of South Allen Road along Ming Avenue. The
existing levee does not extend along the entire 1.5 mile length of the northern boundary along Ming
Avenue.
Lake Isabella Dam
Lake Isabella Dam is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site. According to the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the project site is located within the Lake Isabella Dam
Failure Inundation Area. Inundation of the project site from dam failure would take 8 hours.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR, failure of the dam would result in
flooding 60 square miles of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The City of Bakersfield Flood
Evacuation Plan provides procedures for the protection of health, safety, welfare of the people and
property from potential dam inundation areas.
Groundwater
The City of Bakersfield operates a 2,800-acre recharge facility located southwest of the project site.
This recharge facility allows the City to bank water during surplus rainfall years by recharging the
groundwater table. “Safe Yield” is an important goal of the City to ensure that groundwater levels
remain stable and to regulate the use of groundwater supplies to prevent depletion of recharge
volume.
The northwest portion of the project site has been used for groundwater recharge by the Kern County
Water Agency. Due to the fluxuations in the amount of surface water that is recharge into the
groundwater basin in the project vicinity, the depth of the groundwater table below the project site
varies. According to the Kern County Water Maps (Kern County Water Agency 2003), the depth to
the unconfined aquifer in the fall of 2000 was approximately 80 feet below ground surface. In the
northwestern corner of the project site, groundwater was encountered at a depth of 15 feet below
ground surface (SEI, April 2005). According to SEI, the normal groundwater levels at the project site
are greater than 50 feet below ground surface.
Water Quality
Existing and past farming and oil-related activities on the project site have reduced surface water
quality on the project site. Another source of surface water degradation is from typical automobile-
related contaminants (i.e., oil, grease, and tire particles) as may be deposited on the onsite access
roads.
Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.7-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
5.7.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• 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);
• 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;
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
• 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;
• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows;
• 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; or
• Create Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
5.7.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would have the potential to affect surface hydrology, flooding, groundwater,
and water quality. Following is a discussion of the project impacts that correspond to the thresholds
previously identified in Section 5.7.3.
Impact 5.7.A: The proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in construction activities that could have the
potential to contribute to pollutants in surface waters off-site potentially impacting the water quality
within the Kern River. Generally, construction-phase activities could generate pollutants such as
increased silts, debris, chemicals, and dissolved solids related to the following activities:
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
• Grading - disruption of surface soils and increased susceptibility to erosion;
• Building Construction - Use of sealants, glues; wood preservatives, oils, concrete and the
generation of debris related to construction activities;
• Painting - Paint fragments and stucco flakes;
• Construction Equipment and Vehicle maintenance -Washing, chemical degreasing
Since construction activities could result in increased pollutants to surface water, the proposed project
could result in a short-term potential to degrade surface water quality that could eventually be
conveyed offsite and potentially to the Kern River. This is a potentially significant impact.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Long-term operations of the proposed project would increase the potential of stormwater runoff
transporting contaminants from roadway surfaces, lawns, driveways, parking lots, and other exposed
structural and landscape surfaces into the storm drain system. Typical urban runoff contaminants
(i.e., oil, grease, surfactant, heavy metals, solvents, pesticides, nutrients, or fecal coliform bacteria)
can be expected within runoff.
The proposed project includes a drainage system that includes retention and detention basins so that
stormwater flows from the project site are retained on the site. The project’s basin system includes at
least one basin for each 80 acres which is consistent with the City of Bakersfield requirements. In
addition, the retention basins would be constructed so that they could fully drain within 7 days after a
storm event to be consistent with City policy. There are some detention basins proposed that will
detain water until the storm event passes and then pumps the stormwater to a retention basin. The
detention basins proposed adjacent to the Kern River Canal include pumps that would convey water
to the Kern River Canal during high frequency storm events.
The system of detention and retention basins on the project site would retain the majority of the
surface water generated during storm events. During the low frequency storm events, the storm water
flows generated on the project site would be retained onsite in the retention basins and percolate to
the groundwater basin. This percolation would retain the contaminants within the retention basins.
During the high frequency storm events, the retention basins would continue to allow stormwater to
percolate in the groundwater basin while the pumps at the proposed detention basins facilities would
regulate the amount of stormwater that is retained onsite. The detention basins would provide an
enhancement of the surface water quality through the settlement of contaminants prior to pumping the
stormwater into the Kern River Canal. The system proposed as part of the project would reduce
potential long-term surface water quality impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
5.7.A.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that conforms to the State Water Resources
Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.7-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
Control Board NPDES permit in which the City of Bakersfield is a co-permitee. The
SWPPP shall specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction-
related pollutants from reaching storm water and all products of erosion from moving
off-site. The SWPPP shall require approval by the State Water Resources Control
Board and verification of approval provided to the City of Bakersfield Planning
Department.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.B: The proposed project could deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere with
groundwater recharge.
Project implementation will require additional levees to be constructed by the developer along the
northern and western boundaries of the project along Ming Avenue and along the westerly alignment
of the future alignment of the West Beltway. The project will include the development of urban uses
in an area of the project site that is currently being used for groundwater recharge by the Kern County
Water Agency. These northwestern areas on the project site are known as the Pioneer-Central
Recharge Area and are currently located within the FEMA 100-year Flood Zone A; however, with the
extension and improvement of the existing levee, the project site would be removed from the 100-
year flood zone. The northwestern portion of the project site, which is currently functioning as a
recharge basin during the rainy season, will be replaced with urban uses that have impervious
surfaces and therefore could interfere with groundwater recharge. However, according to Castle &
Cooke, there is an agreement in place between Castle & Cooke and the Kern County Water Agency
which allows for the property within this recharge area to be developed in accordance with the
Specific Plan; in exchange, Castle & Cooke is providing additional groundwater recharge areas to the
Kern County Water Agency. Pre-existing water wells would not experience a decline in production
that would prevent the support of existing or planned land use for which water use permits have been
granted (McIntosh and Associates 2005).
The project will increase water demand for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. This is
discussed in more detail in Section 5.12, Utilities and Service Systems. A portion of this increased
demand will be met with groundwater supplies. The City of Bakersfield will implement policies of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan related to “Safe Yield” as well as the City of Bakersfield’s
Urban Water Management Plan during Site Plan Review. According to McIntosh and Associates, the
implementation of the proposed project would not result in net deficit in aquifer volume or the
lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact on the depletion of groundwater supplies. (McIntosh and Associates 2005).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.C: The proposed project could alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in
a manner which would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in incremental grading on the project site. The
grading would alter the existing drainage of the project site. Onsite stormwater flows would be
conveyed to the series of detention and retention facilities that are proposed onsite.
Construction activities associated with the project could have the potential to cause erosion or
siltation leaving construction sites. Erosion could occur if graded slope areas are not stabilized when
storms occur. Silt leaving a construction site could be transported within stormwater flows or carried
offsite by construction vehicles. Construction activities associated with the project could result in a
significant erosion or siltation impact.
After construction activities on the project site are completed, the site soils would be stabilized with
installation of landscaping and impervious surfaces. The project would substantially increase the area
of impervious surfaces on the project site. This increase would result in a substantial increase in the
rate and volume of runoff from the developed areas as compared with the agricultural and oil
production uses on the site. Although the proposed project would increase stormwater runoff, the
landscaping and impervious surfaces that would be installed on the project site would reduce the
potential for erosion and siltation on and off the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project
would not result in significant long-term erosion or siltation impacts on or off the project site.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7.A.1 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.D: The project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; however, the project
could provide additional sources of polluted runoff.
The proposed project includes the development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. These
land uses would include a substantial amount of impervious surfaces that would increase surface
water runoff during storm events. The project includes a storm drain plan that would convey
stormwater into a system of detention and retention basins. The storm drain plan would be designed
to accommodate a 100-year flood. As discussed under Impact 5.7.A, the proposed retention and
detention facilities would reduce contaminants exiting the site from the long-term operation of the
project because the basins would be designed for the stormwater to percolate into the groundwater
and the contaminants would remain in the basins. As a result, the project would not impact existing
Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.7-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
drainage infrastructure. In addition, the project would result in a less than significant impact from the
project’s additional sources of pollutant runoff conveyed to offsite areas.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.E: The proposed project could degrade water quality within the proposed onsite 5-acre
lake.
The proposed project includes a lined 5-acre manmade lake. The lake has two primary functions; one
to enhance aesthetics and the second to provide recreation opportunities for the residents of the
project vicinity. Accordingly, the applicant is proposing active recreational uses at the lake including
fishing, boating (i.e., sail, human-powered, and electric motor-powered), and other types of surface
aquatic activity; however, swimming at the lake would be prohibited. The initial lake water as well as
the long-term maintenance of the water level at the lake would be by the use of domestic water.
The proposed uses of the lake could result in reductions of the quality of the lake water. These uses
could result in floating debris, water clarity issues, dissolved oxygen, algae, aquatic plant growth, and
insect growth. Activities surrounding the lake could also degrade the water quality of the lake. These
activities could result in trash, leaves, oil, grease, and fertilizers from adjacent landscape areas.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in a significant water quality impact
on the proposed 5-acre lake.
Mitigation Measures
5.7.E.1 Concurrently with submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other
development plan in the northwestern corner of the project site, whichever occurs
first, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval of a lake management
plan for the proposed 5-acre lake. The management plan shall provide specific
methods to achieve a balanced aquatic ecosystem and an aesthetically pleasing lake
with minimal insect infestations and uncontrolled algae blooms. The implementation
of these methods shall result in water quality that can support the proposed uses of
the lake. In addition, the management plan shall provide information on the
personnel responsibilities of the long-term maintenance of the lake as well as the
entity that will assume financial responsibility for the long-term management of the
lake.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant with mitigation.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
Impact 5.7.F: The proposed project includes the placement of housing and potentially other
structures within an area currently designated as a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map.
A portion of the project site is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as being within the 100-year frequency flood zone (see
Exhibit 5.6-1). The project includes residential uses and potentially other structures within areas that
are currently within the 100-year frequency flood zone. According to FEMA regulations, a Letter of
Map Revision that redefines the flood zone based on hydraulic and levee information is required to be
submitted to FEMA to show that the proposed housing would be located outside the 100-year flood
zone. Since the proposed project includes residential uses and potentially other structures within an
area currently designated as a 100-year flood hazard zone, the proposed project could result in a
significant flood impact.
Mitigation Measures
5.7.F.1 Prior to recordation of a final map, or as otherwise determined by the Building
Director, for onsite areas that are currently in 100-year flood hazard area, the project
applicant is required to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The LOMR shall identify that the area of
the proposed development has been removed from the Zone A FEMA designation
and submitted to the City of Bakersfield Building Department. Based on the Flood
Study prepared by McIntosh and Associates in May 2005, the following
improvements are required to remove the majority of the project site from the Zone A
FEMA designation.
Along the northern boundary of the site, the recently constructed levee shall be
extended along Ming Avenue to intersect the proposed West Beltway. The
recommended elevation at the intersection, based on the Revised Conditions Model,
is 354.0 feet.
From the northwestern boundary of the project site, the levee system shall continue to
be constructed along the westerly boundary of the site along the proposed West
Beltway alignment to 2,800 feet south of the Kern River Canal where it would blend
into the natural ground elevation of approximately 349.0 feet. This portion of the
levee may be a separate embankment or it may be incorporated into the proposed
Beltway. In either case, the project applicant shall construct the levee in accordance
with the FIRM - 2 evaluation in the Flood Study prepared by McIntosh and
Associates in May 2005. The evaluation established the water surface elevation for
the 100-year frequency event. The required levee elevation to meet the requirements
of the FEMA is three-feet above the water surface elevation.
Project Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.7-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
Due to the need for the Kern River Canal to extend through the future West Beltway
alignment, the project applicant shall raise the existing canal levee east of the
proposed West Beltway alignment to elevation 351.6 feet and maintain that elevation
until the levee blends into the existing embankment at elevation 351.6 feet.
5.7.F.2 Prior to recordation of a final map, or as otherwise determined by the Building
Director, for the small area of the southwestern portion of the site that is currently
within a 100-year flood hazard area, specific improvements to remove this area from
the Zone A FEMA designation are required to be submitted to FEMA for approval
and then submitted to the City of Bakersfield Building Department.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant. Exhibit 5.7-2 illustrates the proposed flood zones on the project site after
implementation of the above levee system and other improvements.
Impact 5.7.G: The proposed project could expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding as a result of the failure of the Lake Isabella Dam.
If there was a failure of the Lake Isabella Dam, floodwaters could inundate a large portion of the City
of Bakersfield including the project site. According to the State Office of Emergency Services, the
project site and vicinity could be inundated with one to two feet of water. This inundation of the
project site from dam failure would take 8 hours. The City of Bakersfield Flood Evacuation Plan
provides procedures for the protection of health, safety, welfare of the people and property from
potential dam inundation areas through evacuation of areas that would be inundated. This plan is
currently in the process of being updated. The implementation of the Flood Evacuation Plan as well
as the relatively shallow depth of flow estimated by the Office of Emergency Services would not
expose structures or people to a significant risk of loss. Therefore, the potential dam inundation
impacts to the proposed project from Lake Isabella are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.7.H: The proposed project would not be subject to inundation caused by seiche,
tsunami or mudflow.
Seiches and Tsunamis are the result of waves in bodies of water created by earthquakes. A tsunami is
not likely to impact the project site as the nearest point of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 70 miles
away. The nearest water bodies include Buena Vista Lake which is located approximately 8 miles
southwest of the site and Lake Isabella which is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the site.
Due to the distance of these existing large water bodies, it is unlikely that seiches would cause an
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.7-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-07 Hydrology and Water Quality.doc
impact on the proposed project. Since the project site is relatively flat, no mudflow impacts on the
proposed project would occur. Therefore, inundation caused by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is
considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
5.8 - Noise
5.8.1 - Introduction
This section evaluates the potential onsite and offsite noise impacts associated with the construction
and operation of the West Ming Specific Plan Project. Information in this section is based upon the
following:
• Environmental Noise Assessment, Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., February 3, 2004, and
revised August 29, 2006. The complete report is contained in Appendix J of the Technical
Appendices of the DEIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. This document is available for review
at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue in Bakersfield, CA
93301.
5.8.2 - Environmental Setting
Noise Measurement Scales
The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human
hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes
of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dBA are
usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is discernable to most people in an exterior environment
while a change of 10 dBA is perceived as doubling of the noise. Several rating scales exist to analyze
the adverse effects of noise on a community. The following measurements are used to define noise
levels:
Day/Night Level (DNL) - This is the 24-hour average level as measured in decibels with an added
penalty for people’s increased sensitivity to noise at night from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Environmental
Protection Agency identifies 45 DNL indoors and 55 DNL outdoors as the desirable maximum level
of noise.
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) - The measurement of sound energy over a specified period of time
(usually 1 hour). Leq represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over a
timed interval in a single numerical value. For example, a 1-hour Leq noise level measurement
represents the average amount of acoustical energy that occurred in one hour. In addition, variations
in sound levels may be addressed by statistical methods. The simplest of these are the maximum
(Lmax) and minimum (Lmin) noise levels, which are the highest and lowest levels observed. Other
variations include the L50, identifying percentage of time that the noise level standard is exceeded
during fifty percent of an hour (i.e. 30 minutes) or the L25 identifying the percentage of time that the
noise level standard is exceeded during twenty-five percent of an hour (i.e. 15 minutes), etc.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - The CNEL noise metric is based upon 24 hours of
measurement, the CNEL measurement applies a time weighted factor that is designed to emphasize
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
noise events that occur during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours.
Noise produced during the evening hours are penalized by 5 dBA while noise that occurs during the
nighttime hours is penalized by 10 dBA.
City of Bakersfield Noise Standards - The applicable noise level standards that apply to this project
are contained within the City of Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. For noise generated by
transportation sources (traffic), the General Plan sets an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL at the
exterior and 45 dB CNEL at the interior of noise sensitive land uses. Noise sensitive land uses
include residences, schools, hospitals, and recreational uses. For non-transportation related sources,
the Noise Element of the General Plan applies hourly noise level performance at residential and other
sensitive land uses. identifies the hourly standards. The standards are applied to any hour the noise
source is operating, and are 5 dBA more restrictive during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A
significant noise impact may be assumed if one or more of the five criteria are exceeded. The L50
standard is most useful for noise sources that are relatively steady, while the Lmax best characterizes
very sporadic noise sources.
Table 5.8-1: Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Hourly Noise Level Standards
Maximum Acceptable Noise Level (dBA)
Min./Hr. (Ln) 7 AM to 10 PM 10 PM to 7 AM
30 (L50) 55 50
15 (L25) 60 55
5 (L8.3) 65 60
1 (L1.7) 70 65
0 (Lmax) 75 70
Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., May 2006
Environmental Noise Descriptors
Most environmental noise sources produce varying amounts of noise over time, so the measured
sound levels also vary. For example, noise produced during an aircraft overflight will vary from
relatively quiet background levels before the overflight to a maximum value when the aircraft passes
overhead, then returning down to background levels as the aircraft leaves the observer’s vicinity.
Similarly, noise from traffic varies with the number and types of vehicles, speed and proximity to the
observer.
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
For purpose of sound propagation, noise sources may be classified as point sources or line sources.
Point sources usually are localized, such as a piece of machinery and at a distance sound from such
sources will propagate in a spherical pattern. Sound levels from point sources will attenuate or drop-
off at the rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance. Sound from line sources, such as a highway,
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
propagate in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels from line sources will attenuate at the rate of 3 dB
per doubling of distance.
In addition to attenuation by wave spreading, sound levels also may be attenuated by air and ground
absorption, and from shielding by natural or man-made obstacles in the sound path. Noise barriers
(walls or earth berms) are features that are commonly constructed to interrupt noise propagation and
thereby reduce noise levels. Other factors that will also influence sound propagation are wind and
atmospheric temperature inversions. Obviously, all of these factors can work together influencing
sound propagation.
Existing Noise Sources
The project site is used for agricultural purposes with some oil extraction facilities in its southern
portion. The primary source of existing noise in the project vicinity is traffic on local roads.
Background Noise Level Measurements
Background noise level measurements were conducted at an offsite residential location immediately
north of White Lane (3205 Hedgeland) for a 24-hour period from January 22-23, 2004. The noise
measurement showed that the existing CNEL at the residence is 50.6 dB which is below the City’s
outdoor noise standard of 65dB CNEL. The measurement site represents the nearest residential
neighborhood that potentially could be impacted by the project.
Noise monitoring equipment used for the study consisted of a Larson-Davis Model 820 sound level
meter equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphone. The instrumentation complies with
applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision)
sound level meters, and was calibrated prior to use with a B&K Type 4230 acoustical calibrator to
ensure the accuracy of the measurements.
Traffic Noise Levels
Existing traffic noise levels within the vicinity of the project were calculated using the (FHWA)
Traffic Noise Model (TNM). Version 2.5 of the TNM’s Lookup Tables provides a reference of pre-
calculated TNM results for simple highway geometries that are adequate for this evaluation. The
Lookup Tables assume an infinitely long, straight highway over flat ground. Where existing noise
barriers (walls or structures) are present, the noise barrier routine of the Lookup Tables was used to
calculate typical insertion loss (noise reduction) values for the noise barriers. For a typical 6-foot
wall along most roads, the reduction is about 5 dB. Traffic volumes that were used were obtained
from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by McIntosh and Associates (see Appendix J for the traffic
data used). Other traffic inputs into the TNM were obtained from field observations or from data
collected for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Table 5.8-2 shows existing traffic noise
levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project site.
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-2: Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Traffic Noise
Level, (dB,CNEL)
Hageman Road West of Heath N/A
Heath to Renfro N/A
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7
Jenkins to Allen 52.3
Allen to Calloway 56.3
Rosedale Highway Enos to Nord 61.6
Nord to Heath 62.3
Heath to Renfro 63.4
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4
Jenkins to Allen 58.4
Allen to Jewetta 60.5
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3
Calloway to Coffee 62.7
Brimhall Road Renfro to Jenkins 55.9
Jenkins to Allen 58.5
Allen to Jewetta 54.7
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8
Calloway to Coffee 59.4
Stockdale Highway West of Enos 60.4
Enos to Nord 56.1
Nord to Wegis 56.7
Wegis to Heath 57.7
Heath to Renfro 58.0
Renfro to Allen 61.4
Allen to Buena Vista 60.9
Buena Vista to Old River 59.1
Old River to Gosford 61.0
Gosford to Ashe 62.1
Ashe to New Stine 62.7
East of New Stine 67.3
Nord Road North of Rosedale 48.7
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-2 (Cont.): Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Traffic Noise
Level, (dB,CNEL)
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.1
Heath Road North of Hageman 48.7
Hageman to Rosedale 48.7
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.8
Renfro Road North of Hageman 50.4
Hageman to Rosedale 53.5
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.1
Brimhall to Stockdale 51.7
Jenkins Road Hageman to Rosedale 50.4
Rosedale to Brimhall 51.3
Allen Road North of Hageman 49.4
Hageman to Rosedale 55.3
Rosedale to Brimhall 55.7
Brimall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 55.9
Westside Pkwy WB Ramps to Westside Pkwy EB
Ramps 55.9
Westside Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale 55.9
Stockdale to Ming 56.1
South Allen Road Ming to Chamber N/A
Chamber to White N/A
Pacheco to Harris N/A
Harris to Panama N/A
Panama to McCutchen N/A
McCutchen to Taft N/A
Jewetta Avenue North of Hageman 53.6
Hageman to Rosedale 54.7
Rosedale to Brimhall 53.7
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.0
Ming Avenue West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance N/A
Ming Project Entrance to South Allen N/A
South Allen to Buena Vista N/A
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-2 (Cont.): Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Traffic Noise
Level, (dB,CNEL)
Buena Vista to Old River 57.6
Old River to Gosford 61.3
Gosford to Ashe 62.2
Ashe to New Stine 64.1
New Stine to “Old” Stine 63.4
“Old” Stine to Real 63.4
Real to Wible 63.4
East of Wible 61.9
White Lane West Beltway to South Allen N/A
South Allen to East White Project Entrance N/A
East White Project Entrance to Buena Vista N/A
Buena Vista to Old River 57.2
Old River to Gosford 59.8
Gosford to Ashe 62.0
Ashe to Stine 62.0
Stine to Wible 63.6
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 62.7
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.6
NB 99 Ramps to South “H” 60.1
Panama Lane West of Buena Vista 57.1
Buena Vista to Old River 53.5
Old River to Gosford 54.1
Gosford to Ashe 54.1
Ashe to Stine 56.5
Stine to Wible 58.0
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 59.8
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 59.7
East of NB 99 Ramps 59.6
Buena Vista Road Stockdale to Ming 58.3
Ming to Chamber 52.4
Chamber to White 52.4
White to Campus Park 52.1
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-2 (Cont.): Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Traffic Noise
Level, (dB,CNEL)
Campus Park to South Project Entrance 52.1
South Project Entrance to Panama 52.1
Panama to McCutchen 48.1
McCutchen to Taft 48.1
Calloway Drive North of Hageman 49.1
Hageman to Rosedale 59.8
Rosedale to Brimhall 59.4
Brimall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 59.5
Westside Pkwy WB Ramps to Westside Pkwy EB
Ramps 59.5
Westside Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale 59.5
Old River Road Stockdale to Ming 58.9
Ming to White 60.7
White to Pacheco 60.4
Pacheco to Panama N/A
Panama to McCutchen 40.7
McCutchen to Taft 40.7
South of Taft 54.0
Coffee North of Rosedale 64.7
Rosedale to Brimhall 61.8
Brimhall to West Side Pkwy WB Ramps 68.6
West Side Pkwy WB Ramps to West Side Pkwy EB
Ramps 68.6
West Side Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale 68.6
Gosford Road Stockdale to Ming 62.2
Ming to White 60.1
White to Pacheco 58.5
Pacheco to Harris 57.3
Harris to Panama 56.0
Panama to McCutchen 54.2
McCutchen to Taft 54.2
Taft Highway West of Buena Vista 59.3
Buena Vista to Old River 59.7
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-2 (Cont.): Existing Off Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Traffic Noise
Level, (dB,CNEL)
Old River to Gosford 61.7
Gosford to Ashe 59.1
Enos Lane North of Rosedale 62.5
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.5
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.7
South of Stockdale 57.7
Ashe Stockdale to Ming 54.3
Ming to White 58.7
White to Panama 56.9
Panama to McCutchen 45.7
McCutchen to Taft 45.7
New Stine Road / Stine
Road Stockdale to Ming 61.9
Ming to White 61.0
White to Panama 58.4
Panama to Taft 54.7
Note: Noise levels calculated at 25 feet from right of way
N/A: Not applicable because no traffic volumes were recorded on the roadway segment or the roadway segment did not
exist.
Source: Brown-Buntin, Associates, Inc., May 2006
As shown in Table 5.8-2, existing traffic noise levels along Coffee Road from Brimhall Road to
Stockdale Highway exceed the 65 dB CNEL compatibility standard.
Railroad Noise Levels
The San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR) Buttonwillow Branch line is located along the south
boundary of the project site. According to SJVRR, two train operations (1 outbound trip and 1
inbound trip) currently operate on the Buttonwillow Branch line. The trains usually pass by the
project site from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but times can be highly variable. The Sound Exposure Level
(SEL) of a slow moving freight train is typically 98-101 dBA at 50 feet, based on Brown-Buntin
Associates, Inc. file data. Based on this range of typical SEL’s and the number of train operations,
the CNEL of the trains at 50 feet would be 52-55 dB. The distance to the 65 dB CNEL City
compatibility criterion would be approximately 7-11 feet from the tracks. The 65 dB CNEL contour
will be within the existing railroad right-of-way and therefore does not exceed the City’s 65 dB
CNEL compatibility standard.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Oil Wells
Oils wells and extraction facilities are located near the West Ming Specific Plan area and are located
in the central and southern portion of the project site. These wells are typically powered by internal
combustion engines, which can produce substantial sources of stationary noise. Noise levels from oil
wells powered by internal combustion engines can range from 73-74 dBA at 25 feet (BBA file data).
These noise levels can exceed the City’s noise performance standard and therefore be significant.
5.8.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• 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;
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels;
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project;
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
• 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; or
• 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.
The City of Bakersfield has established noise standards related to transportation noise sources for
noise sensitive uses such as residences and schools for outdoor and indoor areas. These noise level
standards are 65dB CNEL for outdoor areas and 45 dB CNEL for indoor areas.
The City of Bakersfield does not have regulations that define acceptable levels of vibration. One of
the most recent references suggesting vibration standards is the Federal Transit Administration’s
(FTA) publication concerning noise and vibration impact assessment from transit activities; this
publication is the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared in 1995. The term
“vibration decibel” (VdB) is used by the FTA. To prevent vibration annoyance in residences, a level
of 80 VdB or less is suggested when there are fewer than 70 vibration events per day. A level of 100
VdB or less is suggested to prevent damage to fragile buildings.
The CEQA Guidelines provide no definition of what constitutes a substantial noise increase; however
the City of Bakersfield Noise Element has been recently amended to address substantial changes in
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
noise levels that may be caused by a project. The thresholds below generally apply to transportation
noise that is usually expressed in terms of average noise exposure during a 24-hour period, such as
the Day/Night Average Level (Ldn) or CNEL. Changes in noise levels that exceed those outlined in
the thresholds below and affect existing noise sensitive land uses (receptors) are considered to be
substantial and therefore would constitute a significant noise impact. The project will have a
significant noise related impact if it would:
• Increase noise levels by 5 dB or more where the existing noise level is less than 60 dB;
• Increase noise levels by 3 dB or more where the existing noise level is 60 to 65 dB; or
• Increase noise levels by 1.5 dB or more where the existing noise level is greater than 65 dB.
5.8.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Long Term Operational Impacts
Impact 5.8.A: Sensitive uses within the project site would be exposed to noise levels that exceed
the established City of Bakersfield noise thresholds.
Traffic Noise Impacts within the Project Site
The development of the proposed land uses would be exposed to traffic noise levels generated from
on- and off-site. Using traffic data provided by McIntosh and Associates, an analysis was conducted
to identify the future traffic noise exposures that would occur at the project site by the Year 2015 and
Year 2030 (see Table 5.8-5). As shown in Table 5.8-5, one roadway segment in 2015 and four
roadway segments in 2030 would expose adjacent sensitive uses to greater than 65 dB CNEL. An
exceedance of 65 dB CNEL on the on-site sensitive uses such as residences and schools would be a
significant noise impact.
In addition, standard residential building construction is typically assumed to provide a noise
reduction of 20 dB with doors and windows closed. Applying this to the exterior noise levels
identified in Table 5.8-3, it may be concluded that the City’s interior CNEL standard of 45 dB may be
exceeded at some of the proposed homes and potentially schools adjacent to South Allen Road, and
White Lane. Therefore, the potential noise impact would be considered significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-3: 2015 and 2030 Traffic Noise Levels on the Project Site
2015a 2030a
Roadway Roadway
Segment No
Project
With
Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
No Project With
Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Ming to Chamber 57.7 59.6 No 60.5 62.5 No
Chamber to White 57.7 60.0 No 60.4 62.8 No
White to Campus
Park 59.2 60.8 No 62.0 63.7 No
South
Allen
Road
Campus Park to
Pacheco 59.2 60.6 No 62.0 63.5 No
West Beltway to
Ming Project
Entrance
58.2 59.7 No 61.0 62.5 No
Ming
Avenue Ming Project
Entrance to South
Allen
53.2 57.6 No 56.0 60.5 No
White to Campus
Park 58.5 61.1 No 60.8 63.7 No
Campus Park to
South Project
Entrance
58.5 59.9 No 60.8 62.3 No Buena
Vista
Road
South Project
Entrance to
Panama
58.6 59.6 No 60.9 62.0 No
West Beltway to
South Allen 61.4 62.3 No 64.1 65.1 Yes
White
Lane South Allen to East
White Project
Entrance
57.6 58.1 No 60.3 60.8 No
North of White
Lane 70.4b 70.2b Yes 70.4b 70.4b Yes West
Beltway South of White
Lane 70.4b 70.2b Yes 70.4b 70.2b Yes
a Assumes that a 6-foot high wall will be located along the streets adjacent to sensitive receptors.
b Based on 2030 Traffic Data.
Note: Noise levels calculated at 25 feet from right of way
Source: Brown-Buntin, Associates, Inc., May 2006.
Mitigation Measures
5.8.A.1 Prior to tentative tract map approval, a noise analysis shall be conducted to determine
the setbacks and/or noise barriers that are required to comply with the City’s 65 dB
CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior noise standards along West Beltway, and
White Lane. It is assumed that a 6-foot high soundwalls and/or setbacks on the
project site along South Allen Road, Ming Avenue, and Buena Vista Road, would be
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
adequate to reduce onsite noise levels to meet the City’s exterior and interior noise
level standards. Furthermore, if interior noise standards are to be met with windows
and doors closed, the specific proposed residential and/or school buildings that
require mechanical ventilation shall be determined in a noise analysis. Specific lot
design and site grading would need to be evaluated in the noise analysis to determine
the specific noise attenuation recommendations.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Railroad Operations
Impact 5.8.B: The proposed project would experience railroad noise levels from the adjacent San
Joaquin Valley Railroad Buttonwillow Branch line.
The proposed project includes residential, office, commercial, and special use district land uses that
could be constructed adjacent to the existing SJVRR Buttonwillow Branch line located along the
south boundary of the project site. As previously stated, the SEL of a slow moving freight train is
typically 98-101 dBA at 50 feet. Based on this range of typical SEL’s and the current railroad
operations, the CNEL of the trains at 50 feet would be 52-55 dB. The distance to the 65 dB CNEL
City compatibility criterion would be approximately 7-11 feet from the railroad tracks. The 65 dB
CNEL contour will be within the existing railroad right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project
would not be exposed to noise railroad noise levels in excess of the City’s 65 dB CNEL compatibility
standard. Therefore, the project would experience a less than significant railroad noise impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Commercial/Light Industrial Operations
Impact 5.8.C: The proposed project could experience noise levels from future onsite commercial
and light industrial activities.
The proposed project includes commercial and light industrial uses that may generate noise levels that
create a significant impact on adjacent sensitive land uses on the project site. A wide variety of noise
sources can be associated with commercial and industrial uses. Noise levels can also range widely.
Typical examples of noise sources are:
• Fans and blowers
• Truck deliveries
• Loading Docks
• Compactors
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
• Saws, routers, grinders
• Machine shop equipment
Noise levels from the proposed commercial and industrial land uses cannot be predicted with
certainty at this time since no specific uses have been proposed. However, under some circumstances
there is potential for these onsite uses to exceed the City’s noise standards and, therefore, be
significant.
Mitigation Measures
5.8.C.1 Prior to site plan approval for commercial and industrial uses adjacent to residential
uses, the project applicant shall conduct a noise study to determine the appropriate
measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the City’s noise level performance
standards. If commercial and industrial uses are proposed adjacent to residential
uses, appropriate measures would include setbacks, sound barrier, or a combination
of both.
5.8.C.2 Prior to City approval (conditional use permit, site plan, building permit, fire
department permit, etc.) for the construction of an oil well adjacent to sensitive land
uses, the project applicant shall conduct a noise study to determine the appropriate
measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the City’s noise level performance
standards. If oil wells are proposed adjacent to existing sensitive land uses, the
engines associated with the oil wells could be converted to electric motors, sound
barriers could be used, or setbacks could be established.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Park Noise
Impact 5.8.D: The proposed project could experience noise levels from future onsite parks.
The proposed project includes passive and active parks. Passive parks do not include active,
organized sports and, therefore, no substantial noise levels would occur in passive parks. Passive
parks are proposed in Villages A, C, D, E and F. The project includes one 15-acre active park
proposed in Village B. This park could include organized sports. Noise levels from organized sport
activities, like baseball, softball or soccer, could be substantial depending on the distance from the
activity to adjacent sensitive uses. Measurements conducted at a Little League baseball game
indicated that noise levels at 150-300 from home plate ranged from L50 54-58 dBA and Lmax values
from 66-72 dBA. If sensitive uses are within these distances, noise levels would exceed the City’s
performance standards and, therefore constitute a significant noise impact.
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Mitigation Measures
5.8.D.1 Prior to tentative tract map approval for the proposed active park and related park
facilities adjacent to sensitive uses, the project applicant shall conduct a noise study
to determine the appropriate measures to reduce potential noise levels to meet the
City’s noise level performance standards. If the proposed active parks or related park
facilities are proposed adjacent to sensitive use areas, appropriate measures would
include setbacks, sound barrier, or a combination of both.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Short Term Construction Vibration Impacts
Impact 5.8.E: Construction activities associated with the proposed project may expose persons
to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Groundborne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with
noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When groundborne
vibration exceeds 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying. Typically, vibration must exceed 100
VdB before building damage occurs.
The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project could be large bulldozers and
loaded trucks. Typical bulldozer or loaded truck activities generate an approximate vibration level of
86-87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. As development is phased throughout the site, construction
activities will continually be moved so that no one home or group of homes would be continually
exposed to construction ground vibration throughout the 20-year build-out period. Due to the
continual movement of construction activities, onsite residences would be temporarily exposed to
construction groundborne vibration.
The nearest existing residences to future construction activities on the project site are approximately
110 feet, and these residences are located along South Allen Road and White Lane. Both of these
roadways include future rights-of-way of 110 feet. Therefore, construction activities on the site
would be 110 feet and farther from the existing residences. However, these existing residences would
be exposed to groundborne vibration levels during construction activities associated with White Lane
and South Allen Road. Both of these roadways would be improved to a 6-lane arterial, and the
existing residences would be approximately 50 feet from the future construction activities of these
roadways.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could temporarily result in annoyance for
nearby residences; therefore, these activities could result in significant groundborne vibration
impacts.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Mitigation Measures
5.8.E.1 Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that construction
activities associated with development of the project site would be required to be in
conformance with Section 9.22.050 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code which
limits construction to the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8 a.m.
and 9 p.m. on weekends, where construction occurs less than 1,000 feet from
residences.
5.8.E.2 Prior to grading plan approval, the grading plans shall state that construction
equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and maintained in accordance with the
equipments’ factory specifications. During construction activities, the construction
equipment muffler and maintenance records shall be onsite.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Off Site Traffic Noise Impacts
Impact 5.8.F: Land uses outside the project site would be exposed to noise levels that result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of traffic volumes on the roadway
system in the vicinity of the project site. Using traffic data provided by McIntosh and Associates, an
analysis was conducted to identify the estimated future CNEL generated by traffic, and indicates
whether the increase above future ambient (i.e., without project) traffic is substantial as defined by the
City’s Noise Element. As shown in Table 5.8-4, no offsite roadways would experience a substantial
increase in future year 2015 ambient noise levels; whereas, one offsite roadway segments (Calloway
Drive from Westside Parkway Westbound to Eastbound ramps) would experience a substantial noise
increase. However, since the segment is located between two on-ramps and off-ramps of the
Westside Parkway, no significant noise impact would occur along this segment because no sensitive
uses are planned to be located along this segment. In summary, implementation of the proposed
project result in less than significant noise impacts
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-16
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4: 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels
2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? Hageman Road West of Heath 42.7 43.3 0.6 No 45.4 46.1 0.7 No Heath to Renfro 49.5 49.8 0.3 No 52.3 52.6 0.3 No Renfro to Jenkins 51.6 51.6 0.0 No 53.7 53.6 -0.1 No Jenkins to Allen 54.0 54.0 0.0 No 55.1 55.1 0.0 No Allen to Calloway 58.5 58.5 0.0 No 59.8 59.8 0.0 No Rosedale Highway
Enos to Nord 62.9 62.9 0.0 No 63.7 63.8 0.1 No
Nord to Heath 63.9 64.0 0.1 No 64.9 65.0 0.1 No Heath to Renfro 63.8 63.9 0.1 No 64.2 64.3 0.1 No Renfro to Jenkins 57.6 57.6 0.0 No 57.7 57.7 0.0 No Jenkins to Allen 57.8 57.8 0.0 No 57.2 57.2 0.0
No
Allen to Jewetta 60.9 60.9 0.0 No 61.3 61.3
0.0
No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.8 61.8 0.0 No 62.1 62.1
0.0
No
Calloway to Coffee 63.7 63.7 0.0 No 64.4 64.4
0.0
No
Brimhall Road Renfro to Jenkins 58.6 58.6 0.0 No 60.1 60.1 0.0 No Jenkins to Allen 60.5 60.5 0.0 No 61.8 61.8 0.0 No Allen to Jewetta 54.6 54.7 0.1 No 54.6 54.7 0.1 No Jewetta to Calloway 59.2 59.2 0.0 No 60.1 60.2 0.1 No Calloway to Coffee 60.4 60.6 0.2 No 61.2 61.4 0.2 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-17
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
Stockdale Highway
West of Enos 62.7 62.7 0.0 No 64.0 64.1 0.1 No
Enos to Nord 59.0 59.1 0.1 No 60.6 60.7 0.1 No Nord to Wegis 59.8 59.9 0.1 No 61.4 61.5 0.1 No Wegis to Heath 60.0 60.1 0.0 No 61.4 61.5 0.1 No Heath to Renfro 55.4 55.4 0.0 No 50.0 49.1 -0.9 No Renfro to Allen 59.6 59.6 0.0 No 57.0 56.9 -0.1 No Allen to Buena Vista 60.4 60.4 0.0 No 59.8 60.0 0.2 No Buena Vista to Old River 61.3 62.2 0.9 No 62.6 63.9 1.3 No Old River to Gosford 61.5 61.8 0.3 No 61.9 62.4 0.5 No Gosford to Ashe 62.7 62.8 0.1 No 63.2 63.4 0.2 No Ashe to New Stine 63.2 63.3 0.1 No 63.6 63.7 0.1 No East of New Stine 68.3 68.3 0.0 No 69.0 69.0 0.0 No Nord Road North of Rosedale 52.1 52.1 0.0 No
53.8 53.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 55.0 55.0 0.0 No 50.4 50.4 0.0 No Brimhall to Stockdale 53.8 53.8 0.0 No 49.7 49.7 0.0 No Heath Road North of Hageman 50.5 50.5 0.0 No 51.7 51.7 0.0 No Hageman to Rosedale 47.3 47.3 0.0 No 45.7 45.7 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 57.2 57.2 0.0 No 57.0 56.6 -0.3 No Brimhall to Stockdale 58.7 58.8 0.1 No 59.8 60.0 0.2 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-18
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? Renfro Road North of Hageman 58.3 58.5 0.2 No 60.7 60.9 0.2 No Hageman to Rosedale 57.9 57.9 0.0 No 59.8 59.8 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 58.2 58.2 0.0 No 59.0 59.0 0.0 No Brimhall to Stockdale 57.2 57.2 0.0 No 59.3 59.2 -0.1 No Jenkins Road Hageman to Rosedale 54.1 54.1 0.0 No 55.9 55.9 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 53.2 53.2 0.0 No 54.4 54.4 0.0 No Allen Road North of Hageman 51.8 51.9 0.1 No 53.2 53.3 0.1 No Hageman to Rosedale 60.2 60.3 0.1 No 62.3 62.3 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 59.7 59.9 0.2 No 61.6 61.7 0.2 No
Brimall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps
60.6 60.7 0.1 No 62.6 62.7 0.2 No
Westside Pkwy WB Ramps to Westside Pkwy EB Ramps
60.5 60.9 0.4 No 62.4 63.0 0.6 No
Westside Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale
60.4 61.3 0.9 No 62.4 63.5 1.1 No Stockdale to Ming 59.0 60.5 1.5 No 60.5 62.6 2.1 No South Allen Road
Ming to Chamber 57.7 59.6 1.9 No 60.5 62.5 2.0 No
Chamber to White 57.7 60.0 2.3 No 60.4 62.8 2.4 No Pacheco to Harris 60.8 61.5 0.7 No 63.5 64.3 0.8 No Harris to Panama 59.0 59.5 0.5 No 61.8 62.2 0.4 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-19
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? Panama to McCutchen 54.0 54.2 0.2 No 56.7 57.0 0.3 No McCutchen to Taft 49.7 49.9 0.2 No 52.4 52.6 0.2 No Jewetta Avenue
North of Hageman 56.5 56.5 0.0 No 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 56.7 56.8 0.1 No 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 56.3 56.4 0.1 No 57.7 58.0 0.3 No
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.4 55.1 0.7 No 54.7 56.0 1.3 No
Ming Ave
West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance
58.2 59.7 1.5 No 61.0 62.5 1.5 No
Ming Project Entrance to South Allen
53.2 57.6 4.4 No 56.0 60.5 4.5 No South Allen to Buena Vista 56.2 57.8 1.6 No 58.9 60.7 1.8 No Buena Vista to Old River 60.7 61.6 0.9 No 62.4 63.5 1.1 No Old River to Gosford 63.0 63.4 0.4 No 64.1 64.6 0.5 No Gosford to Ashe 63.4 63.6 0.2 No 64.3 64.6 0.3 No Ashe to New Stine 64.9 65.0 0.1 No 65.5 65.6 0.2 No New Stine to “Old” Stine 63.9 64.1 0.2 No 64.4 64.6 0.2 No “Old” Stine to Real 64.1 64.1 0.0 No 65.5 65.7 0.1 No Real to Wible 63.8 63.9 0.1 No 64.1 64.2 0.1 No East of Wible 63.0 63.1 0.1 No 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-20
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? White Lane
South Allen to East White Project Entrance
57.6 58.1 0.5 No 60.3 60.8 0.5 No
East White Project Entrance to Buena Vista
57.6 58.1 0.5 No 60.3 60.9 0.6 No Buena Vista to Old River 59.2 60.2 1.0 No 60.4 61.9 1.5 No Old River to Gosford 61.9 62.4 0.5 No 63.2 63.9 0.7 No Gosford to Ashe 63.7 63.8 0.1 No 64.8 65.0 0.2 No Ashe to Stine 63.3 63.4 0.1 No 64.1 64.3 0.2 No Stine to Wible 64.3 64.4 0.1 No 64.9 64.9 0.0 No Wible to SB 99 Ramps 64.4 64.4 0.0 No 65.4 65.5 0.1 No SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 62.2 62.1 0.1 No 62.5 62.6 0.1 No NB 99 Ramps to South “H” 61.3 61.3 0.0 No 62.1 62.2 0.1 No Panama Lane West of Buena Vista 65.3 65.3 0.0 No 67.8 67.6 -0.2 No Buena Vista to Old River 65.9 65.9 0.0 No 68.5 68.6 0.1 No Old River to Gosford 65.9 65.9 0.0 No 68.5 68.4 -0.1 No Gosford to Ashe 62.3 62.4 0.1 No 64.7 64.9 0.2 No Ashe to Stine 62.4 62.5 0.1 No 64.6 64.7 0.1 No Stine to Wible 63.1 63.1 0.0 No 65.1 65.2 0.1 No Wible to SB 99 Ramps 63.4 63.4 0.1 No 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-21
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.9 61.9 0.0 No 63.1 63.2 0.1 No East of NB 99 Ramps 62.2 62.2 0.0 No 63.6 63.6 0.0 No Buena Vista Road
Stockdale to Ming 61.4 62.3 1.0 No 63.0 64.3 1.3 No
Ming to Chamber 59.8 61.4 1.6 No 62.1 63.9 1.8 No Chamber to White 59.9 61.2 1.3 No 62.2 63.8 1.6 No White to Campus Park 58.5 61.1 2.6 No 60.8 63.7 2.9 No
Campus Park to South Project Entrance
58.5 59.9 1.4 No 60.8 62.3 1.5 No
South Project Entrance to Panama
58.6 59.6 1.0 No 60.9 62.0 1.1 No Panama to McCutchen 59.4 59.5 0.1 No 62.0 62.1 0.1 No McCutchen to Taft 54.6 54.8 0.2 No 56.9 57.1 0.2 No Calloway Drive North of Hageman 59.7 59.7 0.0 No 62.3 62.2 -0.1 No Hageman to Rosedale 62.3 62.4 0.1 No 63.8 63.9 0.1 No Rosedale to Brimhall 62.2 62.3 0.1 No 63.7 63.9 0.2 No
Brimall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps
62.8 62.9 0.1 No 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
Westside Pkwy WB Ramps to Westside Pkwy EB Ramps
63.2 63.4 0.2 No 65.0 65.2 0.2 No¹
Westside Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale
64.0 64.3 0.3 No 65.9 66.3 0.4 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-22
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? Old River Road Stockdale to Ming 62.4 62.4 0.0 No 64.1 63.9 -0.2 No Ming to White 63.2 63.2 0.0 No 64.7 64.5 -0.2 No White to Pacheco 59.8 59.8 0.0 No 59.1 59.2 0.1 No Pacheco to Panama 56.3 56.3 0.0 No 59.0 59.1 0.1 No Panama to McCutchen 55.3 55.6 0.3 No 57.9 58.3 0.4 No McCutchen to Taft 53.4 53.9 0.5 No 56.0 56.5 0.5 No South of Taft 57.9 58.0 0.1 No 59.8 59.9 0.1 No Coffee North of Rosedale 67.0 67.0 0.0 No 68.4 68.4 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 63.4 63.5 0.1 No 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Brimhall to West Side Pkwy WB Ramps
69.8 69.8 0.0 No 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
West Side Pkwy WB Ramps to West Side Pkwy EB Ramps
70.1 70.1 0.0 No 71.1 71.1 0.0 No
West Side Pkwy EB Ramps to Stockdale
70.3 70.3 0.0 No 71.3 71.3 0.0 No Gosford Road Stockdale to Ming 64.3 64.3 0.0 No 65.5 65.5 0.0 No Ming to White 62.7 62.7 0.0 No 64.2 64.1 0.0 No White to Pacheco 63.1 63.1 0.0 No 65.1 65.0 -0.1 No Pacheco to Harris 61.7 62.1 0.4 No 63.7 64.1 0.4 No Harris to Panama 60.7 61.1 0.4 No 62.7 63.2 0.5 No Panama to McCutchen 60.6 60.7 0.1 No 62.9 63.0 0.1 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-23
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
McCutchen to Taft 57.3 57.5 0.2 No 58.9 59.1 0.2 No Taft Highway West of Buena Vista 63.6 63.6 0.0 No 65.5 65.4 -0.1 No Buena Vista to Old River 64.3 64.3 0.0 No 66.3 66.3 0.0 No Gosford to Ashe 63.9 63.9 0.0 No 65.9 65.9 0.0 No Old River to Gosford 63.7 63.7 0.0 No 64.9 64.8 -0.1 No Enos Lane North of Rosedale 63.9 63.9 0.0 No 64.8 64.8 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 60.2 60.2 0.0 No 61.6 61.6 0.0 No Brimhall to Stockdale 60.2 60.2 0.0 No 61.6 61.6 0.0 No South of Stockdale 61.3 61.3 0.0 No 63.0 63.1 0.1 No Ashe Stockdale to Ming 55.3 55.3 0.0 No 56.0 56.0 0.0 No Ming to White 59.9 59.9 0.0 No 60.7 60.7 0.0 No White to Panama 59.6 59.6 0.0 No 61.1 61.2 0.1 No Panama to McCutchen 58.9 58.9 0.0 No 61.5 61.5 0.0 No New Stine Road / Stine Road
Stockdale to Ming 63.1 63.1 0.0 No 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Ming to White 62.3 62.3 0.0 No 63.1 63.1 0.0 No McCutchen to Taft 56.4 56.4 0.0 No 59.0 59.0 0.0 No
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Noise
5.8-24
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-4 (Cont.): 2015 and 2030 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels 2015
2030
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway
Roadway Segment
No
Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact?
No Project
With
Project
Change
Potentially
Significant Impact? White to Panama 60.7 60.7 0.0 No 62.0 62.0 0.0 No Panama to Taft 54.3 54.3 0.0 No 57.5 57.5 0.0 No ¹ This roadway segment will be located between two on-ramps and off-ramps of the Westside Parkway. Although the noise level with project increases to a level that exceeds 65 dBA,
sensitive uses are not planned to be located along this segment; therefore, no significant noise impact would occur.
Note: Noise levels calculated at 25 feet from right of way
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Noise
Michael Brandman Associates 5.8-25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Short Term Construction Noise Impacts
Impact 5.8.G: Construction activities associated with the proposed project may result in
substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels.
Construction activities would generate noise levels at various locations within the project site
throughout the 20-year build-out of the project. During construction, noise from construction
activities would potentially impact noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate area. Activities
involved in construction would generate noise levels at 50 feet as shown below in Table 5.8-5. As
development is phased throughout the site, construction activities will continually be moved so that
no one home or group of homes would be continually exposed to construction noise throughout the
20-year build-out period. Due to the continual movement of construction activities, onsite residences
would be temporarily exposed to construction noise.
The nearest existing residences to future construction activities on the project site are approximately
110 feet, and these residences are located along South Allen Road and White Lane. Both of these
roadways include future rights-of-way of 110 feet. Therefore, construction activities on the site
would be 110 feet and farther from the existing residences. However, these existing residences would
be exposed to noise levels during construction activities associated with White Lane and South Allen
Road. Both of these roadways would be improved to a 6-lane arterial, and the existing residences
would be approximately 50 feet from the future construction activities of these roadways.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could temporarily result in annoyance for
nearby residences; therefore, these activities could result in significant noise impacts.
Table 5.8-5: Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment Type Typical Level (dBA at 50 feet)
Backhoe 78
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Project Impacts
Noise West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.8-26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-08 Noise.doc
Table 5.8-5 (Cont.): Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment Type Typical Level (dBA at 50 feet)
Jackhammer 89
Paver 77
Pneumatic Tools 85
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.8.E.1 and 5.8.E.2.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Aviation Noise Impacts
Impact 5.8.H: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working on the project
site to excessive aviation-related noise levels.
The nearest airport to the project site is Kern County Air Terminal, located approximately 10 miles to
the northeast. Due to this distance, noise levels from aircraft activities associated with airports would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Public Services
Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
5.9 - Public Services
5.9.1 - Introduction
This section provides baseline information on, and evaluates the impacts to, public services and
utilities, including fire and police protection, and schools. Information in this section is based on the
following documents:
• Public Services Report, McIntosh and Associates, September 14, 2005 and revised August 24,
2006. The complete report is contained in Appendix K of the Technical Appendices of the
DEIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December of 2002. This document is available for
review.
5.9.2 - Environmental Setting
Fire Services
The City of Bakersfield Fire Department currently provides fire protection and emergency medical
response services to the project site. Within the City there are 15 fire stations. The City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern maintain a Joint Powers agreement that determines agency
functions within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Development is required to be in accordance with
the 2000 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Fire Code Standards, which are
nationally recognized compilations of proposed rules, regulations, and standards.
According to Fire Chief Ron Fraze, fire stations have been situated throughout the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area to meet an emergency response time of six minutes or less (90 percent of the time),
although this goal does not reflect actual experience in all situations. Response times for individual
stations range from a low of 2.9 minutes to a high of 10 minutes. An overall average response time
for engine and truck companies is 5.2 minutes for any property within a 2.6-mile area around a
specific station. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station No. 15 located at the intersection
of Deer Peak Avenue and Buena Vista Road, which is approximately 1.2 miles from the northeast
corner of the site, while the furthest point is approximately 3 miles away. In addition, a future fire
station is planned for construction within the McAllister Ranch project, immediately south of the
West Ming Specific Plan. This station is anticipated to be operational in approximately 2008.
Police Services
The Bakersfield Police Department currently provides police protection services to the project area.
The City of Bakersfield maintains its own police department from its Truxtun Avenue headquarters.
Upon annexation, the property area will be served by the Bakersfield Police Department. However,
the Kern County Sheriff’s Department also has a metropolitan area precinct that provides law
enforcement within the general Bakersfield area. Because the site is currently under agricultural and
petroleum production, the current demand for law enforcement is minimal. The City has a newly
Project Impacts
Public Services West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.9-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
constructed substation adjacent to Fire Station No. 15, which will service and support project
residents. This Bakersfield Police Department Substation is located at the intersection of Buena Vista
Road and Deer Peak Drive. It is currently staffed by 52 patrol officers, 1 graffiti investigator, 1 K9
officer, 4 Service technicians, 1 clerk, and 1 lieutenant. Substation personnel provides service to the
community west of Highway 99, within the city limits. Dispatch and 911 services for the
Metropolitan area are handled from the County Communications Center at Panorama Drive.
The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern have a formal mutual aid agreement for law
enforcement and emergency services. Sheriff’s patrol units traveling through unincorporated cities
within the County will respond to observed police problems and then call for City Police for follow-
up.
Schools
The project site is located within the Panama-Buena Vista Union School District and Kern High
School District (Stockdale High School).
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
The Panama-Buena Vista Union School District (PBVUSD) operates sixteen elementary schools
(grades K-6) and four Junior High Schools (grades 7-8). District enrollment is currently about 13,500
students. Elementary schools (based on site construction size) typically house from 600-800, and
junior highs house 700-900. All existing schools within the District are at or near capacity.
The PBVUSD specified that the Education Code requires school districts to provide for children of
parents employed within the District. However at this time, PBVUSD has not established a
generation rate factor for commercial and industrial development. PBVUSD has established
generation factors for residential development as shown in Table 5.9-1 in Section 5.9.4.
Kern High School District
The Kern High School District (KHSD) currently operates 10 high schools within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area. It is the only high school district serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
Stockdale High currently serves the project site. Other nearby schools serving the general vicinity are
Liberty High School, located approximately 3 miles north of the project site and West High School,
located approximately 5.5 miles east of the project site.
According to the KHSD the district is growing at approximately one-half a high school a year with
some acceleration in the past two years. One new high school (Frontier High School), located at
Allen Road and Kratzmeyer Road (approximately 6-miles north of the project) is expected to open in
2006. The KHSD Board will revise school boundaries upon completion of the new Frontier High
School. However, it is anticipated that Stockdale High School will still serve the project site after
district boundaries are redrawn. In addition, the District anticipates constructing two additional
schools by the fall of 2008 and a total of four schools within the next ten years.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Public Services
Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
High schools constructed by KHSD typically have a capacity of approximately 2,150 to 2,180
students, but can accommodate approximately 100 students over this capacity. Stockdale High
School has a current enrollment of 2,322 students, approximately 150-200 students over capacity.
The Kern High School District is currently studying a new student generation rate, based upon the
rapid growth of the Metropolitan area.
5.9.3 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the project would result in a significant impact to
public services if it would:
• 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:
- Fire protection;
- Police protection; and/or
- Schools.
5.9.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate. The following impact analyses are based on the projected
population increase associated with the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, the projected
population increase associated with the project is 19,020.
Fire Protection Services
Impact 5.9.A: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision or need of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives.
The proposed project will introduce new and more intense land uses to the area. The project will
result in a substantial increase in population and buildings on the project site and will increase the
demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. The proposed project will improve
access throughout the project site with the proposed circulation system. The proposed circulation
system will facilitate more efficient access.
The City of Bakersfield Fire Department has not established a ratio of staff to resident population, but
the national industry standard is 1.0-fire personnel per 1,000 population. Currently, the City of
Bakersfield operates at approximately 0.7 fire personnel per 1,000 population. Using the current City
of Bakersfield ratio, 13 additional personnel would be required for fire protection and emergency
purposes for the proposed project site at build-out.
Project Impacts
Public Services West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.9-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
According to Chief Fraze, personnel at Station No. 15 will provide the required services to the project
site in conformance with the six-minute response time. Station No. 15, which became operational in
2004, will provide the required services until the timing for new personnel and facilities is required at
project build-out. An additional fire station is proposed south of the project site within McAllister
Ranch. This station is anticipated to be operational in approximately 2008. Station No. 15 and the
proposed fire station would be adequate to serve the area and maintain current response times.
Local sales tax revenue would be generated by operation of the proposed commercial and industrial
uses, and property tax revenues would be generated by the proposed project. These revenues would
contribute to funding for adequate equipment, facilities and personnel to serve and meet the fire
protection needs of the project. Further, the development agreement provides for additional
contributions in excess of the project’s fair-share of revenues required to meet these needs.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Sections
15.64.010 to 15.64.480, the proposed project will be required to include specific design features such
as ensuring appropriate emergency access, and requiring structures to be built with approved building
materials, etc. Conformance with these codes helps reduce the risks associated with fire hazards.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant effects related to fire
protection services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Police Protection Services
Impact 5.9.B: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision or need of new or physically altered police protection facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives.
As previously stated, the proposed project will introduce new and more intense land uses to the area.
The project will result in a substantial increase in population in the project vicinity and will increase
the demand for law enforcement services. This increased demand will result from the addition of
people and structures on the project site. Notably, the proposed project will improve the circulation
system within the project area, facilitating more efficient access.
The City uses a staffing goal of 1.3 officers per 1,000 population. According to the Police
Department, this goal is not being met currently due to budget constraints; thus, implementation of
the project will have a direct impact upon police services in the area because the introduction of
residential and commercial uses will increase the likelihood of criminal activity. Specifically, the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Public Services
Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
proposed project is anticipated to incrementally increase criminal activity such as vandalism,
burglary, and theft and will result in a significant impact on existing police protection services. Using
the current City of Bakersfield staffing goal, 25 additional personnel would be required for law
enforcement services.
Therefore, based upon an estimated population increase of 19,020, the proposed project will require
additional personnel and equipment to provide law enforcement services. Furthermore, according to
the City of Bakersfield Police Department, the project will increase the need for police personnel,
support staff, and equipment. According to Police Chief, Bill Rector, the police substation located
adjacent to Fire Station 15, will be adequate to serve the project residents at this time. Local sales tax
revenue would be generated by operation of the proposed commercial and industrial uses, and
property tax revenues would be generated by the proposed project. These revenues would contribute
to funding for adequate equipment, facilities and personnel to serve and meet the police protection
needs of the project. Further, the development agreement provides for additional contributions in
excess of the project’s fair-share revenues required to meet these needs.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant effects related to police
protection services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Schools
Impact 5.9.C: The project may potentially result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision or need of new or physically altered school facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
As previously stated, the proposed project will introduce new and more intense land uses to the area.
The development of residential uses will result in a substantial increase in population in the project
vicinity and the corresponding generation of school children will increase the demand for school
facilities.
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
Mike Killeen, former Facilities Director for the District, notes that all of the approximately 7,450
dwelling units proposed as part of this project are within their district. Using student generation rates
provided by Mr. Killeen, as shown in Table 5.9-1 below, the proposed project is estimated to generate
approximately 2,427 elementary students and 1,484 middle school students.
Project Impacts
Public Services West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.9-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
Table 5.9-1: Student Generation Rates
Residential Use Number of
Dwelling Units Generation Rates Total Students
Elementary - 0.36591 1,737 Single-family (detached)¹ 4,748
Middle School - 0.11529 547
Elementary - 0.27051 731 Multi-family² 2,702
Middle School - 0.6827 184
Elementary 2,468 Total 7,450
Middle School 731
¹ Considers both Low Density and Low-Medium Density residential to be Single-Family.
² Includes all residential dwelling units other than Single-Family.
Source: McIntosh and Associates (June, 2006).
The generation of approximately 2,468 elementary students and 731 middle school students will
significantly impact the school district and necessitate the construction of additional school facilities
to serve the project’s student population.
The proposed project includes several conceptually sited elementary schools and one junior high
school within the project boundary. If required, the future school sites will be developed in
consultation with the Panama Buena Vista School district and located per the District’s requirements.
The location and designation of the schools are not established because the City of Bakersfield does
not designate school sites at the General Plan or zoning level of planning. In accordance with the
City’s General Plan and zoning designations, the schools could be located within any of the
residential areas. Offsite school sites and facilities may be utilized in lieu of onsite school sites and
facilities where available and appropriate.
Kern High School District
As previously stated, high schools constructed by KHSD typically have a capacity of approximately
2,150 to 2,180 students, but can accommodate approximately 100 students over this capacity.
Stockdale High School currently serves the project site, and currently has an enrollment of 150-200
students over capacity.
The Kern High School District is currently studying a new student generation rate, based upon the
rapid growth of the Metropolitan area. Nonetheless, according to the Kern Council of Governments
(KERNCOG) Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
Data, the overall student generation rate for the Bakersfield area is 0.22 students per residential unit.
Using a student generation rate of 0.22 students per residential unit, the proposed project (7,450 units)
is estimated to generate approximately 1,639 new high school students.
The generation of approximately 1,639 new high school students indicates that 0.75 new high schools
would be required to accommodate this population; therefore, the proposed project will significantly
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Public Services
Michael Brandman Associates 5.9-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-09 Public Services.doc
impact the school district and necessitate the construction of an additional high school facility to serve
the student the population anticipated within the project site.
Mitigation Measures
5.9.C.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay Panama-
Buena Vista Union School District and Kern High School District adopted
development impact school fees in accordance with the statutory fees that are in
effect at the time of issuing each permit.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Recreation
Michael Brandman Associates 5.10-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-10 Recreation.doc
5.10 - Recreation
5.10.1 - Introduction
Information in this section is based upon the following documents:
• Public Services Report, September 14,2005, and revised August 24, 2006. McIntosh and
Associates. The complete report is contained in Appendix K of the Technical Appendices of
the Draft EIR.
• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. City of Bakersfield. This document
is available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue,
Bakersfield, California 93301.
5.10.2 - Environmental Setting
Recreation and park facilities that are located in the vicinity of the project site include Tevis Park (7.5
acres), Campus Park South (12.12 acres), Campus Park North (11.07 acres), Garden Park (5.85 acres)
Pin Oak Park (16.81 acres), Windemere Park (5.87 acres), River Oaks Park (12.36 acres), Deer Peak
Park (6.04 acres), and The Park at River Walk (32 acres). Recreational facilities are generally
classified as one of the following: local parks consisting of mini-parks; neighborhood parks; and
community park centers; or as regional parks. Local parks generally range from 1-2.5 acres (mini-
parks), to 5-10 acres (neighborhood parks), and 30 acres (community parks). The City of Bakersfield
requires minimum size standards for park improvements: mini-parks (2.5 usable acres), neighborhood
parks/playgrounds (10 usable acres), and community park/playfield (20 usable acres). Local parks
generally serve a population within a three-quarter mile radius. Regional parks, on the other hand,
can range anywhere from 20 to 1,000 acres and serve a population living within a distance of one
hour’s drive. The provision of regional parks has been primarily the responsibility of the County of
Kern. Local parks have been provided by the City and developers within the City.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan states that the park service level is at 1.88 acre per 1,000
population. California’s Quimby Act was instituted for the purpose of preserving open space and
providing park facilities for California’s growing population, and provides enabling authority to local
governments to require land dedication or in-lieu fees in conjunction with approvals of residential
subdivision projects, to help fund acquisition of public parkland. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, the
City has adopted an ordinance requiring parkland dedication or in-lieu fees for new residential
subdivision projects at a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons who will reside in the city as a result
of the proposed development (BMC §15.80.050). Typically, funds for park maintenance services are
provided by property tax revenues generated by development. BMC Chapter 15.82 requires payment
of a park development fee at the time of issuance of a residential building permit. However, the
developer may enter into an agreement, such as a Development Agreement, with the City to construct
the public parks instead of payment of the Park Development Fee.
Project Impacts
Recreation West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.10-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-10 Recreation.doc
5.10.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if a project:
• Would 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; or
• Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
5.10.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Existing Recreational Facilities
Impact 5.10.A: The proposed project will increase the onsite population by 19,020 persons;
however, this increase would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, or result in
the acceleration of the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in onsite residential population of
19,020 persons. The project also includes the implementation of public and private parks; there are 6
public parks encompassing 56 acres, and there are four private parks encompassing 35 acres. In
accordance with the City’s adopted parkland requirement of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, the proposed
project would be required to include 47.55 acres of parkland. Since the proposed project will include
56 acres of public parkland on the project site, implementation of the project would provide more
than adequate recreational facilities for future residents on the project site. Therefore, existing
recreational facilities would not experience substantial physical deterioration or experience an
acceleration of physical deterioration. The proposed project would result in a less than significant
impact on existing recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance Ater Mitigation
Less than significant.
Proposed Recreational Facilities
Impact 5.10.B: The proposed project includes the implementation of new recreational facilities on
the project site to provide the project site’s future population of 19,020 persons with
adequate recreational facilities. The construction of these recreational facilities
would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The proposed project includes the implementation of new public and private recreational facilities on
the project site. The public facilities would encompass 56 acres and the private facilities would
encompass 35 acres. The construction of these facilities on the project site would result in air
emissions (as discussed in Section 5.2 in this Draft EIR), noise (as discussed in Section 5.8 in this
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Recreation
Michael Brandman Associates 5.10-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-10 Recreation.doc
Draft EIR), and traffic (as discussed in Section 5.11 in this Draft EIR). In addition, the future
maintenance of the private recreational lake may result in health hazards (as discussed in Section 5.6
in this Draft EIR). Although future recreational facilities may result in a physical effect on the
environment; these physical effects on the environment associated with the facilities are expected to
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
5.11 - Transportation and Traffic
5.11.1 - Introduction
This section provides information regarding the existing and future operations of intersections and
roadway segments on and in the vicinity of the project site. An evaluation of the project’s potential
impacts on these intersections and roadway segments is provided as well as recommended
improvements to these facilities. Information in this section is based on the following.
• Traffic Impact Study, McIntosh and Associates, March 2006. The complete report is contained
in Appendix L of the Technical Appendices of the DEIR.
5.11.2 - Environmental Setting
This section includes a description of the transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site that
would be affected by the proposed project. These facilities include the roadways, intersections, traffic
volumes, and project site access.
Roadway Network
The following is a discussion of the study area for the existing and future planned circulation system.
Exhibit 5.11-1 shows the existing and future circulation network within the study area and the
analyzed intersections and roadway segments.
Rosedale Highway - Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) is a designated east-west
arterial. Between 0.20-mile east of Calloway Drive to Coffee Road, it is three (3)
lanes westbound; the remaining 0.20-mile of westbound is only two (2) lanes. The
entire eastbound mile between Calloway Drive and Coffee Road is only two (2)
lanes. Rosedale Highway provides direct access to State Route (SR) 99 Freeway and
is a major thoroughfare to downtown Bakersfield.
Brimhall Road - Brimhall is a four (4)-lane divided arterial between Allen Road and
Jewetta (capable of expansion to a six[6]-lane divided arterial); a four (4)-lane
undivided arterial between Jewetta and Calloway Drive; and a four (4)-lane
undivided collector between Calloway Drive and Coffee Road.
Stockdale Highway - Stockdale Highway is a designated east-west arterial with four
(4) lane divided and six (6) lane divided between Renfro Road to east of New Stine
Road. West of Renfro Road, Stockdale Highway exists as a two (2) lane undivided
roadway. Stockdale Highway provides direct access to the SR 99 Freeway and is a
major thoroughfare to downtown Bakersfield.
Ming Avenue - Ming Avenue is a designated east-west arterial with six (6) lanes
divided from Wible Road to west of Buena Vista Road. The proposed project will
access Ming Avenue directly along its northern frontage.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
White Lane - White Lane is a designated east-west arterial with six (6) lanes from
east of New Stine Road to west of Buena Vista Road. The proposed project will
access White lane directly from both the north and the south.
Panama Lane - Panama Lane is a designated east-west arterial in various stages of
widening from Gosford Road east to SR 99. West of Gosford Road, Panama Lane
exists as a two-lane undivided roadway.
Taft Highway - Taft Highway (State Highway 119) is a designated east-west arterial
that currently exists as a two (2) lane undivided roadway between SR 99 to east of
Enos Lane.
Enos Lane (SR 43) - Enos Lane is a designated north-south arterial that currently
exists as a two (2) lane undivided roadway between Rosedale Highway and Taft
Highway.
Nord Road - Nord Road is a designated north-south arterial providing two (2) lanes
between Rosedale Highway and Stockdale Highway.
Heath Road - Heath Road is a designated north-south arterial providing two (2)
lanes between Rosedale Highway and Stockdale Highway.
Renfro Road - Renfro Road is a designated north-south arterial, except for the ¼-
mile portion south of Stockdale Highway, which has been changed to a collector
designation. Renfro Road begins approximately ¼ mile south of Stockdale Highway
and continues to the north and intersects with Santa Fe Way.
Jenkins Road - Jenkins Road, a designated north-south collector, intersects
Stockdale Highway and extends from roughly ½ mile south of Stockdale Highway to
½ mile north of Stockdale Highway. To the north, it runs from Brimhall Road and
extends to the north past Rosedale Highway.
Allen Road - Allen Road is a designated north-south arterial with two (2) lanes,
undivided from North of Hageman to south of Stockdale Highway. The proposed
project will access South Allen Road directly from both the east and the west.
The following is the laneage is that which would be required at construction of the
project by future year 2015 and not necessarily dictated by project impacts:
• Harris/Pensinger Road and South Allen Road - To provide a signalized intersection
and the construction of two eastbound left turn lanes, one eastbound shared through
lane and right turn lane, one westbound shared left turn, through, and right turn lane,
one northbound left turn lane, one northbound shared through and right turn lane, one
southbound shared left turn and through lane, and one southbound right turn lane.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Buena Vista Road - Buena Vista Road is a designated north-south arterial with two
(2) lanes undivided south of White Lane and four (4) lanes divided north of White
Lane, connecting Taft and Stockdale Highways. The proposed project will access
Buena Vista Road directly along its eastern frontage.
Old River Road - Old River Road is a designated north-south arterial with six (6)
lanes between Stockdale Highway to south of White Lane with two (2) lanes
provided between Pacheco Road and Taft Highway. Old River Road connects to the
extension of Calloway Drive at Stockdale Highway.
Calloway Drive - Calloway Drive, a designated north-south arterial, is a two (2) lane
roadway from Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road and four (4) lanes between
Brimhall Road and Stockdale Highway. The southern terminus of Calloway Drive is
at the Old River Road alignment.
Coffee Road - Coffee Road is a designated north-south arterial with six (6) lanes
from North of Rosedale to Stockdale Highway. Coffee road is aligned with Gosford
Road at Stockdale Highway.
Gosford Road - Gosford Road is a designated north-south arterial with six (6) lanes,
divided between Stockdale Highway to north of Panama Lane. Gosford Road
continues south of Panama Lane, as a two (2) lane undivided roadway. Gosford
Road is aligned with Coffee Road at Stockdale Highway.
Ashe Road - Ashe Road is a designated north-south arterial with four (4) lanes,
divided from Stockdale Highway to Panama Lane. South of Panama Lane it exists as
a two (2) lane undivided roadway.
New Stine/Stine Road - New Stine Road is a designated north-south arterial and is
currently six (6) lane divided roadway between Stockdale Highway and White Lane.
It continues to Panama Lane as Stine Road and is a two (2) lane roadway from
Panama Lane to Taft Highway.
McCutchen Road/ Hosking Avenue - Hosking Avenue currently exists as a two (2)
lane, undivided, designated east-west arterial from Stine Road, continuing eastward
past State Highway 99. It will align with the future McCutchen Road that will
continue west from Ashe Road to Buena Vista Road.
Campus Park Drive - Campus Park Drive exists as a two (2) lane, undivided,
designated collector from Buena Vista Road to east of Old River Road. It will run
through the project site and will intersect with the future alignment of White Lane.
Chamber Boulevard - Chamber Boulevard exists as a two (2) lane divided collector
designation from South Allen Road to Grand Lakes Avenue. It will run through the
project site and will provide access to South Allen Road.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Harris Road - Harris Road exists as a two (2) lane, undivided, designated collector
from Wible Road to Buena Vista Road. It is aligned with Pensinger Road,
continuing west of Buena Vista Road.
Mountain Vista Drive - Mountain Vista Drive is a designated collector that
currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway from North of White Lane to
south of Campus Park Drive.
Windermere Street - Windermere Street is a designated north-south collector that
currently exists as a two (2) lane, undivided roadway north of White Lane. In the
future, Windermere Street will continue south of White Lane into the project site,
providing access to White Lane.
Westside Parkway - The Westside Parkway will be a multilane, divided east-west
local freeway from Stockdale Highway to State Route 178. It will align with the
former Kern River Freeway and will run for approximately 10 miles, cutting through
central Bakersfield. It is assumed for this study that the Westside Parkway will be
constructed by the year 2015.
The following laneage is that which would be required to comply with City
Ordinance at construction of the off-ramps by future year 2015 and not necessarily
dictated by project impacts:
• Allen Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - To provide an unsignalized
intersection and the construction of one eastbound shared left turn and right turn lane,
one northbound shared through and right turn lane, two southbound left turn lanes, one
northbound through lane, and two southbound through lanes.
• Allen Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - To provide an unsignalized
intersection and the construction of one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right
turn lane, one northbound shared left turn and through lane, and one southbound
shared through lane and right turn lane.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - To provide an
unsignalized intersection and the construction of two westbound left turns, one
westbound right turn, one northbound shared left turn and through lane, one
northbound through lane, one southbound through lane, and one southbound shared
through lane and right turn lane.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - To provide an unsignalized
intersection and the construction of one eastbound shared left and right turn lane, one
northbound through lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound left turn
lane, and two southbound through lanes.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - To provide an unsignalized
intersection and the construction of two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound left
turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, three northbound through lanes, two
southbound through lanes, and one southbound shared through lane and right turn lane.
• Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - To provide an unsignalized
intersection and the construction of one eastbound left turn lane, one eastbound right
turn lane, three northbound through lanes, one northbound right turn lane, two
southbound left turn lanes, and two southbound through lanes.
West Beltway - The West Beltway will be a multilane, divided north-south local
freeway from Brimhall Road to Taft Highway. It will align with the current Rudd
Avenue north of Brimhall Road and Jenkins Road south of White Lane. The West
Beltway will run through the proposed West Ming Specific Plan site along its
western edge with on and off ramps at both Ming Avenue and White Lane. It is
assumed for this study that the West Beltway will be constructed by the year 2015.
Performance Criteria
A level of service category is the generally accepted measure used to describe the quality of operation
of roadways and intersections. There are six Levels of Service (LOS) categories - LOS A through
LOS F - where LOS A represents free-flowing traffic conditions and LOS F represents constricted or
bumper-to-bumper traffic conditions.
The City of Bakersfield has established a performance criteria of LOS C for intersections and
roadway segments.
Traffic service levels are also described in terms of an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). The
ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for
critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume-to-capacity
(V/C) ratio for each lane group, expressed in a decimal percent. The ICU of an intersection is based
on the following variables: the number of vehicles using all legs of the intersection; the manner in
which the vehicles use the intersection (left-turns, right-turns, etc.); and the capacity of each lane of
the intersection. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the
intersection.
Table 5.11-1 describes the conditions associated with each LOS category, ICU value, and expected
delays for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 5.11-2 identifies the LOS criteria for
highways and arterials.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Table 5.11-1: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS
Category ICU Range Description
Signalized
Intersection
Delay
(seconds per
vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Delay
(seconds per
vehicle)
LOS A 0-0.60 Excellent operation. All approaches to
the intersection appear quite open,
turning movements are easily made, and
nearly all drivers find freedom of
operation.
< 10 <10
LOS B 0.61 to 0.70 Very good operation. Many drivers
begin to feel somewhat restricted within
platoons of vehicles. This represents
stable flow. An approach to an
intersection may occasionally be fully
utilized and traffic queues start to form.
> 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and <15
LOS C 0.71 to 0.80 Good operation. Occasionally drivers
may have to wait more than 60 seconds,
and back-ups may develop behind
turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted.
> 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and <25
LOS D 0.81 to 0.90 Fair operation. Cars are sometimes
required to wait more than 60 seconds
during short peaks. There are no long-
standing traffic queues.
> 35 and ≤ 55 >25 and <35
LOS E 0.91 to 1.00 Poor operation. Some long-standing
vehicular queues develop on critical
approaches to intersections. Delays may
be up to several minutes.
> 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and <50
LOS F > 1.01 Forced flow. Represents jammed
conditions. Backups form locations
downstream or on the cross street may
restrict or prevent movement of vehicles
out of the intersection approach lanes;
therefore, volumes carried are not
predictable. Potential for stop and go
type traffic flow.
> 80 > 50
< = less than
≤ = less than or equal to
> = greater than
Source: Traffic Impact Study, McIntosh and Associates, March 2006
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Table 5.11-2: LOS Criteria for Roadway Segments
Level of
Service Description V/C Ratio
A Free flow conditions, unimpeded ability to maneuver and pass, very little delay,
no platoons, highest average travel speeds.
0.00-0.60
B Mostly free flow conditions, presence of other vehicles begins to be noticeable.
Passing is required to maintain speeds, slightly less average travel speeds than
Level of Service “A.”
0.61-0.70
C Traffic density clearly affects the ability to pass and maneuver within the stream.
Speeds are reduced to about 50 mph on highways and to about 50% of the average
on urban arterials.
0.71-0.80
D Unstable flow. Speeds are reduced from 40% to 60% of normal. Passing demand
is high although mostly impossible on 2-Lane Highways. Traffic disruptions
usually cause extensive queues.
0.81-0.90
E Very unstable flow at or near capacity. Passing and maneuvering virtually
impossible. Extensive platooning on highways and queuing on arterials. Speeds
range from 20 mph or less on arterials and 2-Lane Highways, and up to 50 mph
on Multi-lane Highways.
0.91-1.0
F Forced or breakdown flow. Demand exceeds capacity. Vehicles experience short
spurts of movement followed by stoppages. Intersection congestion, long queues,
and delays are common.
Above
1.0
Source: Traffic Impact Study, McIntosh and Associates, March 2006
Traffic Volumes and Traffic Counts
Traffic counts were taken at major intersections within the study area as required by the City of
Bakersfield. Counts were used to determine the local peak hour, directional distribution, and existing
operational level of service. A portion of the existing traffic counts were taken from the approved
traffic study prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, dated June 2005, for the nearby Old
River Ranch project site, per public record.
Existing traffic counts were taken at the evening (PM) peak hour for all intersections within the study
area and at the morning (AM) peak hour for all intersections under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Transportation as required by Caltrans, because Caltrans requires AM peak hour
analyses of their intersections. AM peak hour counts were also taken at all of the intersections
requiring analysis beyond existing conditions. This requirement is based on those intersections that
have greater than 50 vehicles per hour (vph) and operate better than LOS C and for facilities that
operate at LOS C or worse, a sliding scale is applied as follows: LOS C- 40 vehicles per hour (vph);
LOS D-30 vph; LOS E-20 vph; LOS F-10 vph.
A total of 74 intersections were analyzed to determine the existing levels of service during the peak
periods. Currently 19 of the 79 existing study area intersections operate at an unacceptable level of
service for morning or evening peak hours or both. Following is a list of the intersections.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Rosedale Highway and Allen Road (AM and PM peak hours);
• Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive (PM peak hour);
• Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road (AM and PM peak hours);
• Truxton Avenue and Coffee Road (AM and PM peak hours);
• Stockdale Highway and Gosford Road (AM and PM peak hours);
• Stockdale Highway and New Stine Road (AM and PM peak hours);
• Ming Avenue and New Stine Road (PM peak hour);
• Ming Avenue and Old Stine Road (PM peak hour);
• Ming Avenue and Real Road (PM peak hour);
• Ming Avenue and Wible Road (PM peak hour);
• Buena Vista Road and Chamber Boulevard (PM peak hour);
• White Lane and Ashe Road (PM peak hour);
• White Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM peak hours)
• White Lane and Southbound (SB) SR 99 Ramps (PM peak hour);
• White Lane and South H Street (PM peak hour);
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM peak hour);
• Panama Lane and Reliance Road (AM peak hour);
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road (PM peak hour);
• Panama Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM peak hour)
Additionally, a total of 127 roadway segments were analyzed to determine the existing level of
service. All of the analyzed roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e.,
LOS A, B, or C).
5.11.3 - Thresholds of Significance
Criteria used to determine the significance of traffic impacts are based on Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield standards. A project would normally have a significant
impact if it would:
• Cause an increase in traffic that 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);
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the city.
• 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;
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
• Result in inadequate emergency access;
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Result in inadequate parking capacity; or
• Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks).
The City of Bakersfield considers a project to have a significant impact related to level of service on
intersections and roadways if it will:
• Results in one or more study area intersections and/or roadway segments that currently
operates at LOS C or better operating below LOS C; or
• Results in the LOS degradation of any study area intersection and/or roadway segments that
currently operates at LOS D or worse.
5.11.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Roadways and Intersections
Impact 5.11.A: The proposed project will increase traffic substantially in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system including intersections and roadways.
This increase will individually exceed the City’s level of service standard for
intersections and roadways.
Implementation of the proposed project will substantially increase traffic in the project vicinity. The
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes generated from the proposed land uses were estimated using the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition (2003). Table 5.11-3
identifies the anticipated project-related average daily trips and AM and PM peak hour trips.
Table 5.11-3: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Net Acres Density
D.U.’s / AC D.U.’s / GLFA Daily Trip
Average
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Single Family Residential 1208.80 2.87 3475 du 30229 2524 3061
Single Family Residential 310.20 4.10 1273 du 11491 928 1172
Multi-Family Residential 87.20 7.90 689 du 4461 346 412
Multi-Family Residential 130.10 13.39 1742 du 11163 873 1028
Multi-Family Residential 12.80 21.17 271 du 1800 137 167
Office Commercial 36.35 N/A 395,852 sf 4103 589 556
General Commercial 38.06 N/A 414,473 sf 13964 318 1262
Special Use 217.18 N/A 1,135,000 sf 10341 1631 1246
Total 87552 7346 8904
Source: McIntosh and Associates, March 2006.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
As shown in Table 5.11-3, the proposed project will result in an average daily traffic of 87,552, AM
peak hour traffic of 7,346 trips, and PM peak hour traffic of 8,904 trips.
The project generated traffic was assigned to the existing and future roadway network based on
KernCOG’s regional traffic model. The traffic analysis was conducted for the years 2015 and 2030.
Year 2015 and Year 2030 traffic volumes were determined using data from the regional cumulative
projects traffic model prepared by KernCOG. The KernCOG model uses traffic software, which
bases traffic projections on Traffic Analysis Zone (T.A.Z.) Socio-Economic data projected for future
year scenarios. A traffic model run was requested from KernCOG for the Year 2030 with projected
background traffic, traffic attributable to the proposed project, along with traffic from all other future
proposed projects that add traffic to the surrounding roadway network. Future traffic volumes are
based on socio-economic data for all the proposed projects and predicted growth for future years.
This model accounts for cumulative impacts of all proposed projects when performing impact
analysis on the existing and proposed street network. The data from this cumulative projects model
run was used to derive the traffic volumes for analysis of the “Future Year 2015 Projected Volumes
with Project” and the “Future Year 2030 Projected Volumes with Project” scenario. An additional
model run was requested from KernCOG that removed socio-economic data related to the proposed
project which was used to derive the projections for the “Future Year 2015 Projected Volumes
without Project” and the “Future Year 2030 Projected Volumes without Project”. The data from this
model run was compared to the data from the cumulative model run to approximate traffic volumes
attributable to the proposed project.
Project Design Features
The following are project design features and the laneage is that which would be required at
construction of the project by future year 2015 and not necessarily dictated by project impacts:
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound shared through and right turn lane, one westbound shared left
turn and through lane, and one northbound shared left turn and right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound left turn lane, one eastbound right turn lane, two westbound left
turn lanes, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right
turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, and one eastbound,
one westbound, two northbound, and two southbound through lanes.
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound left turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right
turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound left
turn lane, one westbound and one northbound through lanes, one eastbound shared through and
right turn lane, and one southbound shared through and right turn lane.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• White Lane and South Allen Road - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound left turn lane, one eastbound shared through lane and right turn
lane, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound through lane, one westbound right turn lane,
one northbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, one northbound right lane, one
southbound left turn lane, and one southbound shared through lane and right turn lane.
• White Lane and Windermere Street - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound left turn lane, two eastbound through lanes, one eastbound right
turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, two westbound shared through and right turn lanes, one
northbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, one northbound right turn lane, one
southbound left turn lane, and one southbound through and right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound shared left turn, through, and right turn lane, one westbound
shared left turn, through, and right turn lane, one northbound shared left turn, through, and
right turn lane, and one southbound shared left turn, through, and right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 - To provide an unsignalized intersection and the
construction of one eastbound shared left turn and right turn lane, one northbound shared left
turn and through lane, and one southbound through and right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and South Allen Entrance - To provide an unsignalized intersection and
construct one eastbound shared left turn, through, and right turn lane, one westbound shared
left turn, through, and right turn lane, one northbound shared left turn and through lane, one
northbound shared through and right turn lane, one southbound shared left turn and through
lane, and one southbound shared through and right turn lane.
• Buena Vista Road and South Project Entrance - To provide an unsignalized intersection and
construct one eastbound shared left turn and right turn lane, one northbound shared left turn
and through lane, one southbound shared through and right turn lane, and one northbound
through lane.
Following is an analysis of the project’s impacts on intersections and roadways in the years 2015 and
2030.
Year 2015
Year 2015 traffic volume projections were used to analyze project generated traffic impacts at the
time of the anticipated half buildout of the project.
Intersection Analysis
Of the 189 intersection scenarios (AM and PM) analyzed for existing and/or future LOS, 41
intersection scenarios were not analyzed beyond existing conditions because these intersections did
not meet the sliding scale criteria for further analysis (see Table 7 of Appendix L of this EIR).
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
The analysis for the Year 2015 with project assumes that the improvements required for the Year
2015 without project are implemented prior to the addition of project related traffic.
With the addition of project-related traffic, a total of 18 intersections will exceed the established
thresholds during either the AM, PM, or both AM and PM peak hours even with the improvements
that are required for the Year 2015 without project. Impacts at the intersections identified below are
considered significant and are attributed to the proposed project.
• Allen Road and WB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Allen Road and EB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Park (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive(Am and PM Peak)
• White Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Windermere Street (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and NB Westside Beltway (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive (AM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road (PM Peak)
Roadway Segment Analysis
Of the 127 roadway segments analyzed under existing conditions, 69 segments did not warrant further
analysis under future project-related conditions based upon the sliding scale criteria discussed
previously in this section.
A total of 10 roadway segments will require mitigation beyond the improvements that are required for
the Year 2015 without project.
• Stockdale Highway - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
Year 2030
Year 2030 traffic volumes were used to analyze project generated traffic impacts at the time of full
buildout of the project.
Intersection Analysis
Similar to the Year 2015 scenario, Year 2030 assumes that the improvements required for the Year
2030 without project are implemented prior to the addition of project related traffic.
With the addition of project-related traffic, a total of 26 intersections will exceed the established
thresholds during either the AM, PM, or both AM and PM peak hours even with the improvements
that are required for the Year 2015 without project. Impacts at the intersections identified below are
considered significant and are attributed to the proposed project.
• Allen Road and EB Westside Parkway (AM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and WB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and EB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Old River (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Gosford Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 (Am and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Windermere Street (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Gosford Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and South Allen Entrance (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM Peak)
• Old River Road and Harris Road (AM Peak)
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Buena Vista Road and South Project Entrance (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM Peak)
• Harris Road and Gosford Road (AM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Gosford Road (AM Peak)
Roadway Segment Analysis
A total of 25 roadway segments will require mitigation beyond the improvements that are required for
the Year 2030 without project.
• Stockdale Highway - Buena Vista Road to Old River Road
• Ming Avenue - Ming Avenue Project Entrance to South Allen Road
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road
• Ming Avenue - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine Road
• Ming Avenue - Old Stine Road to Real
• White Lane - West Beltway to Allen Road
• White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps
• Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway Ramps
• Allen Road - WB Westside Parkway Ramps to EB Westside Parkway Ramps
• Allen Road - EB Westside Parkway Ramps to Stockdale Highway
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco
• Buena Vista Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• Buena Vista Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
• Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway
• Coffee Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Gosford Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
Mitigation Measures
5.11.A.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the
Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program as well as paying the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
proportional share for local mitigation improvements (those not covered by the
RTIF). The intersection and roadway improvements that are required with the
proposed project are as follows. The timing of these improvements are estimated
below; however, shall be completed as the significance thresholds are reached.
Year 2015
Intersection
• Allen Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one southbound
through lane.
• Allen Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 - Provide all-way-stop.
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Install signal.
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard - Install signal.
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 - Install signal.
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
• White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, one
eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one southbound right turn
lane, one eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, one southbound
through lane, and provide overlapping phase for westbound and northbound right
turn lane.
• White Lane and Windermere Street - Install signal.
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct two eastbound though lanes and
one northbound left turn lane.
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct one southbound through
lane, one eastbound left turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and Northbound Ramps West Beltway - Construct one eastbound
through lane and one northbound left turn lane.
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and
one southbound right turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Roadway Segment
• Stockdale Highway - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane - Add two lanes.
2030
Intersection
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one
southbound right turn lane.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Construct one
northbound right turn lane.
• Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road - Construct one eastbound right turn
lane.
• Stockdale Highway and Old River - Provide overlapping phase for westbound
right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 - Install signal and construct one
eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn
lane, and one eastbound through lane.
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one
southbound left turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one westbound through
lane, one northbound through lane, one southbound through lane, and provide
overlapping phase for northbound right turn lane and eastbound right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road - Construct one eastbound through lane.
• Ming Avenue and Gosford Road - Provide overlapping phase for eastbound right
turn lane.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard - Construct one eastbound left turn
lane, one westbound left turn lane, two northbound left turn lanes, one southbound
left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one northbound through lane, and
one southbound through lane.
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 - Construct one northbound left turn
lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one
eastbound through lane, two westbound through lanes, and one southbound
through lane.
• White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane, one
southbound left turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one southbound through
lane, one northbound through lanes, and provide overlapping phase for southbound
right turn lane.
• White Lane and Windermere Street - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one
westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn
lane, one southbound right turn lane, one eastbound through lane, and one
westbound through lane.
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one
northbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
• White Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound through lane.
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct two eastbound left turn
lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound
left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one
southbound right turn lane, and one northbound through lane.
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Construct one westbound right turn
lane, one northbound left turn lane, and one southbound right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and South Allen Entrance - Install signal.
• Old River Road and Harris Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and one
westbound left turn lane.
• Buena Vista Road and South Project Entrance - Install signal.
• South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Construct one northbound through
lane.
• Gosford Road and Harris Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane and
one southbound through lane.
Roadway Segment
• Stockdale Highway - Buena Vista Road to Old River Road - Add two lanes.
• Ming Avenue - Ming Avenue Project Entrance to South Allen Road - Add two
lanes.
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Add two lanes.
• Ming Avenue - Old River Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
• Ming Avenue - New Stine Road to Old Stine Road - Add two lanes.
• White Lane - West Beltway to Allen Road - Add two lanes.
• Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Provide for divided roadway.
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two
lanes.
• Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
• Allen Road - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add
two lanes.
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Provide for divided roadway.
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Provide for divided
roadway.
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes and
provide for divided roadway.
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Add two lanes and
provide for divided roadway.
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance - Provide for
divided roadway.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic
Michael Brandman Associates 5.11-21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane - Provide for divided
roadway.
• Coffee Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes.
• Gosford Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Add two lanes.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable. After the implementation of the required mitigation measures, the
proposed project would result in the degradation of a level of service that began at or below LOS C
without the project for the following facilities. Impacts to intersections would be less than significant
after implementation of the required mitigation measures.
• Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine (LOS D);
• White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps (LOS D); and
• Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS E).
Air Traffic
Impact 5.11.B: The proposed project would not cause changes in air traffic patterns.
The nearest airport to the project site is Kern County Air Terminal, located approximately 10 miles to
the northeast. Due to this distance, the project would not change air traffic patterns.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Emergency Access
Impact 5.11.C: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed project includes a roadway network that provides a backbone circulation system to
access all areas of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact public
safety due to emergency access.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impact.
Project Impacts
Transportation and Traffic West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.11-22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-11 Transportation.doc
Parking
Impact 5.11.D: The proposed project would not provide inadequate parking facilities.
As specific development is proposed within the West Ming Specific Plan, existing City parking
requirements will be required to be met. At this time, it is anticipated that all future proposed uses on
the site would provide adequate parking. The project would result in no impacts on future parking
facilities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impact.
Alternative Transportation
Impact 5.11.E: The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Bikeway Master Plan identifies future Class 2 bike lanes along Buena
Vista Road, South Allen Road, Ming Avenue, White Lane, and Pacheco Road in the direct vicinity of
the project site. The closest existing bike path is designated Class I, and it is located along the south
side of the Kern River. The proposed project includes 6-foot wide bike lanes in each direction along
Buena Vista, South Allen Road, Ming Avenue, and White Lane. The project does not include bike
lanes along Pacheco Road because the roadway is located south of the existing railroad tracks and is
located off the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportations such as bike lanes/paths.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impact.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Michael Brandman Associates 5.12-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
5.12 - Utilities and Service Systems
5.12.1 - Introduction
This section provides baseline information on, and evaluates the impacts to utilities and service
systems, including water services, sewer services, stormwater, and solid waste disposal. Information
in this section is based upon the following:
• Public Services Report, McIntosh and Associates, September 14, 2005, and revised August 24,
2006. and revised August 24, 2006. The complete report is contained in Appendix K of the
Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• SB221/SB610 Water Assessment Report, Provost and Pritchard, August 2006 (Revision 6)..
The complete report is contained in Appendix M of the Technical Appendices of the Draft EIR.
• West Ming Specific Plan, Bakersfield, California, April 2006.
5.12.2 - Environmental Setting
Water Services
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. There are four water
purveyors within the city limits which include: California Water Service Company, City of
Bakersfield, East Niles Community Service District, and Vaughn Mutual Water Company. Notably,
the city water system derives 100 percent of its supply from groundwater wells located throughout the
service area.
The majority of the City of Bakersfield (City) is served by the California Water Service Company
(CWSC), a privately held public utility that is the largest municipal water supplier in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area. The CWSC’s water supply is obtained principally from 187 wells and
supplemented by the Kern County Water Agency’s Improvement District No. 4 (ID 4) - treated State
Water Project surface supply water. Approximately 20 percent of the water used by CWSC is surface
water purchased from ID 4. Furthermore, the CWSC operates the city’s water system under contract
with the City of Bakersfield. Accordingly, CWSC is contracted to serve the area east of Coffee Road
in the city; whereas the City of Bakersfield - Water Resources Department serves the area west of
Coffee Road.
The City of Bakersfield - Water Resources Department (Department) oversees the divisions of
Agricultural Water and Domestic Water. In general, the Department provides for the regulation,
distribution, water banking and record keeping operations on the Kern River. The Domestic Water
division oversees and administers the Ashe, Riverlakes and Fairhaven domestic water systems that
provide drinking water to over 85,000 residents and local businesses in Bakersfield. Accordingly, the
water balance of the incorporated City is principally served by the City of Bakersfield’s Ashe Water
Project Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.12-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Company, with supplies obtained from groundwater of 47 wells. Additional wells are continually in
development.
Furthermore, the City has acquired water rights for Kern River flows for approximately 140,000 acre-
feet per year. Together with appropriate storage rights in Isabella reservoir; it currently sub-contracts
to provide water for irrigation to five agricultural water districts a major portion of these rights,
utilizing the balance for groundwater recharge. The City also operates the 2,800 acres of recharge
ponds along the Kern River on the west side of the City. This spreading area provides groundwater
recharge for Kern River flows utilizing both its own water rights and agreements with other water
agencies for “banking” their water in the underground aquifer. This banking system is an important
reliability feature in the City’s water supply system. The future use of this water for municipal and
industrial purposes is a key factor in the long-range adequacy of the urban water supply of the
planning area.
Potential Domestic Water Service
According to the Public Services Report, the City of Bakersfield is identified as the water purveyor
who will supply the proposed project with domestic water. The City of Bakersfield has several water
wells located within the project site.
Existing Crop Water Demand
Since landowner records for water diversions were not available for this area, existing crop water
demand was calculated from available historical data. Existing crop area totals were published in the
1990 and 1998 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Crop Survey. Crop evapotranspiration
estimates were obtained from reports published by the University of California Experimental Station.
Crop data was used from both the 1990 and 1998 DWR Crop Survey reports in order to develop a
range of existing irrigation demands.
The 1990 DWR Crop Survey report states that existing agricultural uses included field crops, grain,
hay, native vegetation, semi-agricultural, urban industrial and pasture. Total area for these uses was
approximately 2,106 acres. Crop area totals presented in this report can vary significantly between
years because of changing agricultural market conditions and crop selection. The estimated annual
consumptive use for lands, as determined in the SB221/SB610 Water Assessment Report for West
Ming Specific Plan, for 1990 and 1998 was 6,393 and 4,326 acre-feet, respectively.
Existing Water Facilities
Currently, the existing water facilities include a 30-inch water line located along the Kern River
Canal, 16-inch waterlines located in the southeastern portion of the project site, and eight (8) water
wells located throughout the project site. Specifically, existing 16-inch waterlines extend along
White Lane from west of Buena Vista Road to Buena Vista Road and along Buena Vista Road from
Ming Avenue to Pacheco Road.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Michael Brandman Associates 5.12-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Wastewater Services
The Metropolitan Bakersfield area is served by five major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of
Bakersfield’s 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 boundary). In addition, there are several small, temporary treatment facilities in the
Rosedale area north of the Kern River, and west of NORSD’s service area boundaries.
According to the Public Services Report, the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3 will serve the
proposed project with wastewater services. The City of Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant No.
3 is located approximately 6 miles southeast of the project site and has a capacity of 16.0 million
gallons per day with an average flow of 11.3 million gallons per day. Currently, the City is in the
process of expanding Plant No. 3 to 32.0 million gallons per day to accommodate new urban growth
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary (including the West Ming Specific Plan
area). The expansion is estimated to be completed by the end of the year 2009.
Existing Wastewater Features
Currently, existing 42-inch sewer truck line extends south from Ming Avenue along South Allen
Road to White Lane, where it extends east along White Lane to Buena Vista Road, and then extends
south along Buena Vista Road and extends south of the existing railroad. There is an existing sewer
lift station on the project site along White Lane approximately 1,400 feet west of Buena Vista Road.
Stormwater and Drainage
The natural drainage of the project site is generally to the southwest, along and parallel to the main
drainage channel of the Kern River. Relief across the site is fairly gentle, with only minor variations
in elevation, which do not concentrate flows on the project site. The project site does not currently
contribute surface flows off-site. The only natural drainage feature in the vicinity of the project site is
the Kern River, which is located adjacent to the northwestern portion of the project site. The Kern
River consists of primary and secondary floodways. The project site is traversed by a portion of the
Kern River Canal.
Portions of the project site are located within the 100-year flood zone; the area north of the Kern
River Canal and an area in the southwest corner of the project site.
Solid Waste
Operation of mandatory refuse collection services in the City of Bakersfield is managed by the City
Solid Waste Division through a system of municipal collection and contract hauling to control and
manage waste collection. The project site is located within the County’s landfill service area. The
Bena Landfill would serve the proposed land uses that generate waste on the project site. Within a
district or franchise area, a waste hauler has exclusive rights to pick up residential and commercial
wastes. Any customer desiring service must be provided service. Whereas, in the permit areas, waste
haulers also have exclusive territory rights, but any customer desiring service is not required to be
Project Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.12-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
provided service. Refuse collected by the City or contract hauler is transported to the County Landfill
at Bena, located about 15 miles east of downtown Bakersfield. The Bena landfill is located
approximately 20 miles from the project site.
In 1992, the Kern County Waste Management Department opened the Metropolitan Bakersfield
(Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Bena is the County’s first fully lined landfill and serves the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area. Currently the County has permission to develop 48 acres of the 2,165-acre Bena
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 permitted capacity, as of January 1, 2003, of 22,367,758 tons.
5.12.3 - Thresholds of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of an impact on utilities and service systems is based
on the model initial study checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed
project may be considered to have a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, and require new or expanded entitlements;
• 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;
• 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;
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board;
• 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;
• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs; or
• Not comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Michael Brandman Associates 5.12-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
5.12.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate.
Water Availability
Impact 5.12.A: The implementation of the proposed project would increase the water demand on
the project site; however, the project would not require the domestic water provider
to obtain new or expanded entitlements and resources.
Development of the proposed project would result in the eventual removal of the existing agricultural
crops on the project site and development of the proposed land uses in accordance with the West
Ming Specific Plan. The removal of the agricultural crops would result in the elimination of an
annual consumptive use of approximately 5,360 acre-feet of water per year. This projected annual
use is the average amount of water used onsite based on data from 1990 and 1998. Along with this
water reduction onsite, the proposed development could increase consumptive use of up to 8,116
acre-feet of water per year. This estimate is the average water demand (anticipated water demand)
based on the best-case evaluation and the worst-case evaluation of project water demand provided in
the SB 221/SB 610 Water Assessment Report (see Appendix M). In addition, as part of the
groundwater management plan for Kern County, agricultural irrigation demand is supplemented with
reclaimed water from the two wastewater treatment plants serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
Reclaimed wastewater is piped to agricultural lands located southwest of the project site. The City is
currently allowed to dispose of reclaimed water on non-edible crops, which typically include alfalfa
and cotton. Therefore, wastewater generated by the proposed project could be used by agricultural
lands within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. According to the SB 221/SB 610 Water Assessment
Report, wastewater flow generated by the proposed project at buildout that is assumed to be used as
reclaimed water under the anticipated water demand estimate is projected to be 1,472 acre-feet per
year. In summary, the net consumptive use of water on the project site would be 1,284 acre-feet year
which is 8,116 acre-feet of water per year used by the project and reduced by the current water use by
onsite agricultural activities (5,360 acre-feet of water per year) and the wastewater generated by the
project (1,472 acre-feet of water per year) that could be used as reclaimed water for agricultural
irrigation.
According to the SB 221/SB 610 Water Assessment Report, the net increase of consumptive use of
water by the proposed project (i.e., 1,284 acre-feet per year) would represent approximately 0.3
percent of the existing consumptive use of water within the City’s service area. Based on the supply
of water from the Kern River and the State Water Project (i.e., 138,000 acre-feet per year),
implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant effect on the City’s
current availability of water. Furthermore, based on the future year 2025 supply of water from the
Kern River, State Water Project, and reclaimed water, the City is projected to have a range of 240,250
acre-feet per year (single dry year) to 357,725 acre-feet per year (normal year) of water compared to a
projected demand within the City’s water service area of 50,375 acre-feet per year of water.
Project Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.12-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant effect on
the City’s future availability of water.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.B: The project would require and result in the construction of new domestic water
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
The proposed project includes a conceptual water system that has waterlines throughout the project
site as well as 8 proposed water wells distributed throughout the site. According to the SB 221/SB
610 Water Assessment Report, the conceptual water facilities would be adequate to provide water
service to the proposed land uses. In addition, according to McIntosh and Associates, no new offsite
water facilities would be required with project implementation (McIntosh and Associates, June 2006).
Due to the need for onsite waterlines and water wells on the project site, the construction of these
facilities could result in significant environmental impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, air emissions) to land
uses that exist on the site prior to construction of the facilities.
Mitigation Measures
5.12.B.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite water facilities (i.e., water
lines and water wells), the construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic,
and air emissions on adjacent land uses need to be adequately addressed in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Construction activities are required to occur
at times specified in the Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the
construction equipment. Operational noise levels associated with the water wells are
required to be in conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance
Standards. Traffic management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate
safety during construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required
to be reduced according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines and long term emissions associated with the water well pump would
require an air permit from the District.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Michael Brandman Associates 5.12-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Wastewater
Impact 5.12.C: The implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of
wastewater on the project site and would require new and expanded facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Based on the Public Services Report, the proposed project is anticipated to increase wastewater flows
from the project site by an average flow of 2.83 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater
flow would require expansion of the existing lift station along White Lane as well as the potential
expansion and/or extension of existing trunk sewer lines to the City of Bakersfield Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 3. Therefore, the project would result in significant impacts related to existing
sewer facilities.
The treatment plant’s current average flow would increase from 11.3 million gallons per day to 14.4
million gallons per day with the implementation of the proposed project. Since the City is currently
planning to expand the existing capacity at the treatment plant to accommodate 24.0 million gallons
per day by the end of the year 2009, implementation of the project would result in a less than
significant impact on the treatment facilities.
The proposed project includes a conceptual sewer plan for the project site. The conceptual plan
includes a range of 8-inch to 18-inch sewer lines to connect with the existing sewer lines along South
Allen Road, White Lane, and Buena Vista Road.
Due to the need for onsite and offsite sewer facilities, the construction of these facilities could result
in significant environmental impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, air emissions) to land uses that exist on the
site prior to construction of the facilities.
Mitigation Measures
5.12.C.1 Prior to the recordation of final maps, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the
City of Bakersfield Public Works Department that the existing sewer trunk lines and
the existing sewer lift station on White Lane are adequate to accommodate project
flows. If the development of the individual tracts result in the exceedance of the
capacities of the existing facilities, the existing facilities shall be expanded or new
facilities shall be constructed to adequately serve the proposed tract.
5.12.C.2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay sewer
connection fees to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. The fees would
be used to provide adequate sewer facilities to convey wastewater from the project
site to Wastewater Treatment Plan No. 3 as well as contribute to the cost to increase
the capacity of the treatment plant.
5.12.C.3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite and offsite sewer facilities, the
construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic, and air emissions on
adjacent land uses need to be adequately addressed in accordance with the CEQA
Project Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.12-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Guidelines. Construction activities are required to occur at times specified in the
Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the construction equipment.
Operational noise levels associated with any sewer lift stations are required to be in
conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance Standards. Traffic
management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate safety during
construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required to be reduced
according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines and
long term emissions associated with the lift station would require an air permit from
the District.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.D: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The wastewater and sewer treatment associated with the proposed West Ming Specific Plan project
would be serviced by the City of Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3, which operates
according to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation
measures. These policies are implemented under approval of the City Public Works Department and
comply with the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore,
the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Stormwater and Drainage
Impact 5.12.E: The project could 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.
The proposed project will include grading on the project site. The grading would alter the existing
drainage on the site. The proposed project includes a conceptual storm drain plan that includes a
series of detension and retention facilities and storm drain lines that connect them. The detention
facilities include pumps that would be used when an excess of water enters the detention facilities.
These detention facilities are located near the Kern River Canal, and the pumps would convey water
from the detention facility to the Kern River Canal.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Michael Brandman Associates 5.12-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Due to the need for onsite drainage facilities, the construction of these facilities could result in
significant environmental impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, air emissions) to land uses that exist on the site
prior to construction of the facilities.
Mitigation Measures
5.12.E.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the onsite drainage facilities, the
construction and operational impacts such as noise, traffic, and air emissions on
adjacent land uses need to be adequately addressed in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines. Construction activities are required to occur at times specified in the
Municipal Code as well as ensure that mufflers are on the construction equipment.
Operational noise levels associated with the drainage pumps are required to be in
conformance with the City of Bakersfield Noise Performance Standards. Traffic
management plans need to be implemented to ensure adequate safety during
construction activities. Finally, construction air emissions are required to be reduced
according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Guidelines and
long term emissions associated with the drainage pumps would require an air permit
from the District.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Solid Waste and Landfills
Impact 5.12.F: The project could be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste on the project
site. The City could not provide waste generation estimates for the proposed mixed use and general
commercial, light industrial, and park uses. However, the California Integrated Waste Management
Board (CIWMB) does provide a list of waste generation information extracted from various sources
including previously written environmental documents, such as those developed by city or county
planning departments. Although CIWMB does not officially endorse any of these rates and cannot
validate their accuracy, the rates can be considered useful in providing a general level of information
for planning purposes. Waste generation from parks constructed as part of the proposed project was
conservatively estimated at 25 pounds per day as shown in Table 5.12-1. Based upon this
information, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 23,338 tons of solid waste
per year as shown in Table 5.12-1 below.
Project Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.12-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-12 Utilities and Service Systems.doc
Table 5.12-1: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Units or Square Feet Generation Rate¹ Solid Waste Generation
Residential 7,450 units 1 ton/unit/year 7,450 tons/year
General and Mixed Use
Commercial 810,080 sq. feet 13 lb./1,00 sq. ft./day 1,922 tons/year
Schools 5,550 students 1 lb./student/day 1,013 tons/year
Light Industrial 1,135,000 62.5 lb./1,00 sq. ft./day 12,946 tons/year
Open Space/Parks 106 acres 25 lb./acre/day 58 tons/year
Total Solid Waste: 23,338 tons/year
Source: McIntosh and Associates, 2006.
¹ Waste Generation Rates provided by CIWMB.
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. The threshold of significance cites
that a project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. The Bena landfill has
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the addition of the proposed
project is not a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.12.G: The project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste generated on the project site will be
required to be approved by the City of Bakersfield and comply with applicable federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
no impacts.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Population and Housing
Michael Brandman Associates 5.13-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-13 Population and Housing.doc
5.13 - Population and Housing
5.13.1 - Introduction
This section of the Draft EIR includes an examination of the existing population from new homes and
employment, and housing in the area and analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project on
population and housing. The project is located within the City of Bakersfield and unincorporated
Kern County. The site is currently used for agriculture and oil production. Information in this section
is based upon the following documents:
• Kern County Population Projections, State of California Department of Finance, 2004. These
projections are available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.
• State of California, Department of Finance, May 2006. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates
for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2006, with 2000 Benchmark.
• Kern County Regional Housing Allocation Plan, Kern Council of Governments, 2001. This
document is available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.
• City of Bakersfield General Plan Housing Element, City of Bakersfield, 2003. This document
is available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue,
Bakersfield, California 93301.
• City of Bakersfield Population Projections, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, May
2004. These projections are available for review at the City of Bakersfield Planning
Department at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.
5.13.2 - Environmental Setting
Population projections throughout California are provided by the State Department of Finance. Based
on the population projections, the State Department of Housing and Community Development
projects housing growth. These agencies provide the population and housing growth estimate for the
state as a whole as well as each county within the state. The local regional agency for each county
(i.e., Kern Council of Governments) receives these estimates and works with the cities within their
county to provide projections for the cities and unincorporated areas of their county. Following is a
discussion of the population and housing projections for Kern County and City of Bakersfield.
Population
According to the State of California, Department of Finance, the year 2000 population of Kern
County was 664,694 and the City of Bakersfield population was 246,889. The City’s population
represented approximately 37 percent of the population in Kern County. In January 2006, the
population of Kern County was 779,869 and the City’s population was 311,824 (State of California,
Department of Finance 2006). The City’s population represented approximately 40 percent of the
Project Impacts
Population and Housing West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.13-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-13 Population and Housing.doc
population in Kern County. The population projections for Kern County are located in Table 5.13-1
and provided by the State of California, Department of Finance. The City of Bakersfield projections
are based on an annual 2 percent growth.
Table 5.13-1: Kern County and City of Bakersfield Population Projections
Actuala Projection Years
Locality
2000 2006 2010 2020 2030
Kern County 664,694 779,869 808,808 950,112 1,114,878
Bakersfield 246,889 311,824 337,528 411,445 501,549
a State of California, Department of Finance May 2006.
Estimate based on an annual 2 percent growth within the City.
Michael Brandman Associates, 2006.
As shown above the City of Bakersfield population will represent approximately 45 percent of the
population in Kern County.
Housing
According to the State of California, Department of Finance, the number of housing units in the year
2000 within Kern County was 231,567 and in the City of Bakersfield, there were 83,441 housing
units. The City’s housing represented approximately 36 percent of the population in Kern County. In
January 2006, Kern County had 262,934 housing units and the City of Bakersfield had 108,242
housing units (State of California, Department of Finance 2006). The City’s housing represented
approximately 41 percent of the total housing units in Kern County. The housing projections for
Kern County are projected based on growth rate of population and the City of Bakersfield housing
unit growth is based on a 2 percent growth per year.
Table 5.13-2: Kern County and City of Bakersfield Housing Projections
Actuala Projection Years
Locality
2000 2006 2010 2020 2030
Kern County 231,567 262,934 281,774 331,002 388,404
Bakersfield 83,441 108,242 117,165 142,823 174,100
a State of California, Department of Finance May 2006.
Estimate based on an annual 2 percent growth within the City.
Michael Brandman Associates, 2006.
As shown above the City of Bakersfield will have approximately 45 percent of the total housing units
in Kern County.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Population and Housing
Michael Brandman Associates 5.13-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-13 Population and Housing.doc
5.13.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if a project:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly by proposing new homes and d
businesses or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
5.13.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Population and Housing
Impact 5.13.A: The proposed project will induce substantial population growth in the project area.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in residential population of 19,020
persons. In addition, the project includes employment uses such as commercial and industrial that
would generate approximately 4,226 employment opportunities. This increase in residential and
employment population is considered substantial. The buildout of the proposed project is projected to
occur in approximately 20 years. Based on the assumed 2 percent growth rate for the City as shown
in Table 5.13-1, the City would increase its population by approximately 189,725 persons from 2006
to 2030. The proposed project would represent approximately 10 percent of the City’s total
population growth. The project’s growth is considered substantial; however, this project growth in
population could be considered part of population growth projected by the City. Therefore, the
project growth could be considered consistent with the City’s anticipated growth.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 5.13.B: The proposed project will not displace a substantial number of existing housing or
people.
The project site does not contain any housing units; therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not displace existing housing units. In addition, the project site includes agricultural activities
and oil production facilities. These uses currently provide employment opportunities. The proposed
project may retain the oil production activities on the project site and may not affect these
employment opportunities. The employment opportunities for the existing agricultural uses are
Project Impacts
Population and Housing West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.13-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-13 Population and Housing.doc
seasonal based on the crops that are grown. Therefore, no substantial long-term population would be
displaced with the implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
SECTION 6: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.1 - CEQA Requirements
Section 15310 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a
project when the incremental effects of a project are cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts
are defined as an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the
EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. Cumulatively considerable means that the
incremental effects of an individual 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. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, elements considered necessary to provide an
adequate discussion of cumulative impacts of a project include either: (1) list of past, present, and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) a summary of projection
contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate
regional or area-wide conditions.
6.2 - Cumulative Impact Setting
The cumulative analysis discussed in this section depends on the environmental component that is
analyzed. The cumulative analysis for Transportation and Traffic and Noise assume development in
accordance with an annual growth rate for the southwest Bakersfield area. Average rates were
developed based on a review of historical growth rates and the Kern County Council of Governments
(KernCOG) TPPLUS traffic model data for the Year 2030, and these rates were used to determine
volumes for the Year 2015.
The cumulative analysis for Air Quality includes various types of analysis. These include local
evaluations for PM10 and odor, one-mile radius for hazardous air pollutants, and regional evaluations
(i.e., traffic study area) for criteria pollutants.
The cumulative analysis for Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services,
Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems is based on a list of cumulative projects. A list of
cumulative projects within the City and County is contained in Appendix O of this EIR.
6.3 - Cumulative Impact Analysis
6.3.1 - Agricultural Resources
Impact 6.3.1.A The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to agricultural
resources that is considered cumulatively considerable.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, a substantial conversion of prime
agricultural land to urban uses have occurred in recent years and is anticipated to continue with the
future implementation of the land uses in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The proposed project
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
and future development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area will continue to convert prime
farmland to non-agricultural uses. The proposed project will convert 2,182 acres of prime farmland
to non-agricultural use, and this impact to agricultural resources is considered cumulatively
considerable.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available at this time that would reduce the impacts to less than
significant.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
6.3.2 - Air Quality
The cumulative analysis is based, in part, on a quantitative analysis of projects in the vicinity of the
proposed project, and is supplemented with the State of California Department of Finance population
projections, and an analysis of data utilized by the Kern Council of Governments’ (Kern COG)
adopted regional growth forecast used for the regional air quality conformity analysis required by the
1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). The nearby project analysis (traffic affected
analysis) quantifies operational project impacts along with all identified projects in the vicinity of the
project site for comparison with San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the basin’s Kern County portion
totals for NOx and ROG. The Kern COG analysis confirms whether the proposed project, when
added to existing and proposed development and compared with local and regional growth forecasts,
are in line with those forecasts, and therefore, in conformance with SIP emission budgets or baseline
emissions for NOx, ROG, CO and PM10. Along with CO “Hot Spot” analysis, TACs, visibility and
odor, the combined analyses provide a detailed description of the project’s overall contribution to the
cumulative impact on air quality.
The Air Quality Impact Assessment considered the affects of the proposed project with the
cumulative impacts of growth in the area. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality
Impacts under CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
The document also states “any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality
impact… would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of
local pollutants (CO, TACs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined
emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.”
If a project related air quality impact is individually less than significant, the impacts of reasonably
anticipated future activities, probable future projects and past projects are included based on similar
air quality impacts, transport considerations and geographic location.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Criteria Pollutants
Impact 6.3.2.A: The project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Regional Analysis
An analysis of the existing and proposed projects within an area identified in the traffic study where
roadway segments and intersections will require improvements due to project-generated traffic was
conducted. The projects identified were determined based on cumulative project information
obtained from City and County planning personnel. Thirty-five proposed residential development,
four mixed use, and twenty-four commercial projects have been identified and modeled using the
URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 computer model to predict cumulative impacts. A build-out rate of 4
dwelling units a month was applied for each other identified project when no other information was
available. Emissions for the operational phase of the proposed projects were based on housing lot
totals and commercial square feet totals provided by the City of Bakersfield Planning Department and
the Kern County Planning Departments.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been designated as a non-attainment area for the ozone
standards, both federal and state. A quantitative modeling analysis was conducted to address
potential cumulative criteria pollutant impacts in the project area. The modeling approach employed
is consistent with federal, state and District guidance for considering the impacts from industrial
facilities.
Under federal modeling guidance, “nearby” sources are considered to determine cumulative ambient
impacts. The federal Guideline on Air Quality Models defines a “nearby” source as any source
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient (net increase) in the vicinity of the proposed
new source. Vicinity is defined as the “impact area,” which is a circular area with a radius extending
from the source to the most distant point where the model predicts an impact in excess of the
significance threshold. Under federal guidance, no additional modeling would be required if the
maximum impacts do not exceed the significance threshold.
The cumulative impact from surrounding sources was taken into consideration by adding the highest
background value for the project area during the last three years to the modeled impacts. The highest
value from any of these stations over the past three years was taken as the background concentration.
Potential cumulative impacts from the proposed project were predicted using the U.S. EPA Industrial
Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) atmospheric dispersion model. The ISCST3 model
is appropriate for modeling the potential impacts of area sources, such as fugitive dust sources, in
simple (i.e., flat) and complex (i.e., hilly) terrain. Regulatory default model control parameters were
utilized.
The maximum predicted total impacts were compared to the California and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS). The cumulative results show that total impacts (i.e.,
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
modeled maximum cumulative impacts plus highest background values) of all the criteria pollutants
are below the applicable state and federal standards, with exception of PM10 (216.6% of the 24-hour
standard and 224.1% of the annual standard) and PM2.5 (106.5% of the 24-hour standard and 154.2%
of the annual standard). Therefore, cumulative impacts of the other criteria pollutants from stationary
sources are considered less than significant within the one-mile and six-mile radius. The cumulative
impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 are considered significant within the one-mile and six-mile radius.
In addition to the cumulative analysis that assumes full project buildout, an analysis of an
intermediate year (i.e., 2015, when the project site has most of the commercial and industrial sources
built out) was conducted. Therefore, all of the final year stationary sources were included in the
intermediate year model. In addition, the construction equipment required to build out the various
uses onsite were included in the model. The construction equipment included: 4 rough terrain
forklifts, 4 skid steer loaders, 4 rubber tired loaders, 4 water trucks, a grader, a dump truck, a paver,
one piece of paving equipment, and 2 rollers. In addition, two 20-acre area sources were modeled to
represent fugitive dust emissions from grading activities that could be occurring. The construction
equipment was placed around the project site based on the land uses throughout the site. This created
a very conservative stationary source model.
The maximum predicted total impacts were compared to the California and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS). The cumulative results for intermediate year 2015 show
that the total impacts (i.e., modeled maximum project impacts for intermediate year 2015 plus highest
background values) of all the criteria pollutants are below the applicable state and federal standards,
with exception of PM10 (259.4% of the 24-hour standard) and PM2.5 (124.8% of the 24-hour standard
and 159.2% of the annual standard). Therefore, the impacts of the other criteria pollutants from
stationary sources are considered less than significant within the one-mile and six-mile radius. The
cumulative impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 are considered significant.
As shown above and based on the projects emission identified in Section 5.2, the projects contribution
to cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emission levels is considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Impact 6.3.2.B: The operation of the project and cumulative development would contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation resulting in emissions
that violate air quality standards or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable Air Quality Management Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project along with future development would result in a substantial
increase in emissions within the Air Basin. When project emissions are added to future development
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
emissions, a total of 253.22 tons per year (tpy) of ROG, 205.86 tpy of NOx, 3,798.54 tpy of CO,
206.3 tpy of PM10 and 4.37 tpy of Sox would be generated. As described in Section 5.2, the proposed
project would result in a significant increase in ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions. Therefore, the
project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality is considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Public Health/Hazards
Impact 6.3.2.C: Cumulative development would not contribute substantial pollutant concentrations
to exposed sensitive receptors. .
Toxic Air Contaminants
Cumulative analysis for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
focused on local impacts on sensitive receptors. The District recommends screening a radius of 1
mile for TAC cumulative impacts.
According to the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, no further industrial-zoned
acreage exists within the project site one-mile radius; therefore, the cumulative health risk is the same
as the project’s direct health risk.
As previously discussed in Section 5.2 - Air Quality under Impact 5.2-4, modeling was performed for
all TACs estimated to be emitted from the proposed project with HARP. This modeling
demonstrated that at the maximum point of impact at the nearest fence line, and at the proposed
location of the schools, the health based standards were not exceeded. Therefore, cumulative health
risk impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Impacts
The cumulative carbon monoxide impacts are accounted for in the CO “Hot Spot” screening analysis
described earlier in Section 5.2 - Air Quality under Impact 5.2-4. As previously discussed in Section
5.2 - Air Quality under Impact 5.2-4, modeling was conducted to determine the impact of the mobile
sources in accordance with the CO “Hot Spots” model, CALINE 4. The results are shown in Table
5.3-18 in Section 5.2 - Air Quality under Impact 5.2-4, and do not equal or exceed the standards.
Therefore, cumulative CO impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Visibility Impacts
Impact 6.3.2.D: Cumulative development would contribute to visibility impacts.
According to the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, the threshold for
California Standard-based visibility is correlated to the standard Extinction Coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer. This equates to 90 µg/m3 of PM10. The maximum modeled PM10 cumulative impact of
108.08 µg/m3 (as shown on Table 7.1-5 in the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft
EIR) is over 90 µg/m3. This is due to the background concentration (104.3 µg/m3) exceeding the 90
µg/m3. Since cumulative development will contribute PM10 to an air basin that is in non-attainment
of PM10, development of the cumulative projects, including the proposed project would result in a
significant visibility impact. The project’s contribution to the cumulative visibility impact is
considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.2.C.1 and 5.2.C.2 are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Odor Impacts
Impact 6.3.2.E: The project may potentially contribute substantial objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. .
According to the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, cumulative analysis for
odors focused on local impacts on sensitive receptors; therefore, cumulative odor impacts are the
same as the project’s direct odor impacts.
As previously discussed in Section 5.2 - Air Quality under Impact 5.2-5, odor assessments in
accordance with GAMAQI were conducted and no odor complaints were found. Modeling was
conducted through ISCST3 for individual odor producing chemicals that may be emitted from the
proposed project. The results are contained in Table 5.3-19 in Section 5.2 - Air Quality under Impact
5.2-5. The odor thresholds are not met or exceeded for the operational phase. Therefore, cumulative
odor impacts are considered to be less than significant, and the projects contribution to cumulative
odor impacts in not considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
6.3.3 - Biological Resources
Impact 6.3.3.A: The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to biological resources
that is considered cumulatively considerable. .
Implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with future development associated with the
General Plan buildout, would contribute to the loss of habitat in the region, resulting in a decline of
biological resources and species diversity. The proposed project would not result in the loss of
sensitive habitat or plant species. However, since the San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl are
known to exist in the general area, implementation of the proposed project as well as future
development associated with General Plan buildout could result in a significant cumulative impact on
this species. Since the proposed project could result in significant impacts on these species, the
project’s impact to biological resources is considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.3.A.1 through 5.3.A.4 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.4 - Cultural Resources
Impact 6.3.4.A: The proposed project will contribute to a significant impact to cultural resources
that is considered cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project and future projects associated with General Plan buildout are located in an area
known to contain cultural resources. The record search conducted for the proposed project identified
a substantial number of cultural sites in the project vicinity. The project site previously contained 10
archaeological sites and 19 isolates. Therefore, implementation of the project and other projects
could potentially result in significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The project’s
contribution to potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources is considered cumulatively
considerable; and therefore, significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.4.A,1, 5.4.C.1, and 5.4.D.1 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.5 - Geology and Soils
Impact 6.3.5.A: The proposed project will result in liquefaction and erosion impacts; however, the
project’s contribution to these impacts are considered less than cumulatively
considerable. .
Soils and geologic influences are site specific and there is little, if any cumulative relationship
between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative
project area. For instance, development at the project site will not result in altering geologic events or
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
soil features/characteristics, such as groundshaking, seismic intensity, or soil expansion; therefore,
development at the project site will not affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event on an
adjacent site is experienced. However, future development within the project site and the project area
may expose future populations on the project site to liquefaction and erosion impacts; however, these
potential impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 6.3.6.A: The proposed project will contribute to a cumulative increase in the use of
hazardous materials in the project vicinity; however, the proposed project and
cumulative projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact
related to hazardous materials. .
The presence of hazardous materials associated with the past onsite oil production and agricultural
activities as well as the future potential storage and use of hazardous materials associated with the
proposed project may result in public health issues; however, these potential issues are considered
site-specific. The proposed project could cumulatively increase the use and storage of hazardous
materials in the project vicinity as development intensifies on the site. Implementation of the
proposed project as well as other future projects in the vicinity could use a variety of hazardous
materials; however, all hazardous materials would be required to be stored and used in accordance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Adherence to the applicable laws
and regulations would minimize the potential cumulative health hazards to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 6.3.7.A: The proposed project will increase drainage and degrade surface water quality;
however, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable. .
The implementation of the proposed project and other future projects could increase the degradation
of surface water quality during construction and operational activities. The construction activities on
the project site could result in runoff to the Kern River and may contribute cumulatively with
potential runoff from other projects. The project’s potential contribution to surface water quality
degradation is considered cumulatively considerable.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure 5.7.A.1 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Impact 6.3.7.B: The proposed project includes housing and potentially other structures within an
area currently designated as a 100-year flood hazard area. The project’s
contribution to cumulative flooding impacts would be considered cumulatively
considerable. .
The project’s potential flooding impact is considered site specific and would not cumulatively add to
future flooding in other areas of Metropolitan Bakersfield. As additional development occurs in the
vicinity of the Kern River, there may be more housing and people proposed to reside in areas that are
currently subject to flooding from 100-year flood events. Therefore, the project’s contribution of
increasing potential flooding impacts is considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure 5.7.F.1 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.8 - Noise
Impact 6.3.8.A: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative noise levels offsite that would
expose land uses to noise levels that exceed the established City of Bakersfield
noise thresholds. .
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of traffic that would increase
noise levels in areas off of the project site. The cumulative noise levels were based on the cumulative
traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Report that is located in Appendix L. The City of Bakersfield
Noise Element identifies the standards for cumulative noise impacts for mobile sources. These
standards are as follows:
The project’s contribution to noise increase would normally be considered cumulatively
considerable and considered significant when ambient noise levels affect noise sensitive land
uses (receptors) and when the following occurs.
• A project increases the ambient (cumulative without project) noise level by 1 dB or
more; and
• The cumulative with project noise level cause the following
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing
ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL;
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing
ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL;
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• An increase on the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the
existing ambient level is greater 65 dB CNEL.
Future noise impacts to the surrounding area were derived through the use of the TNM Model. These
future noise levels were calculated for the years 2015 and 2030. Table 6-1 shows that the cumulative
noise levels for the year 2015. As shown in Table 6-1, the proposed project’s contribution to the
cumulative noise increase along five roadway segments of Buena Vista Road would be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Table 6-1: Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
West of Heath — 43.3 — 42.7 43.3 0.6 No
Heath to Renfro — 49.8 — 49.5 49.8 0.3 No
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7 51.6 4.9 51.6 51.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 52.3 54.0 1.7 54.0 54.0 0.0 No
Hageman
Road
Allen to Calloway 56.3 58.5 2.2 58.5 58.5 0.0 No
Enos to Nord 61.6 62.9 1.3 62.9 62.9 0.0 No
Nord to Heath 62.3 64.0 1.7 63.9 64.0 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 63.4 63.9 0.5 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4 57.6 0.2 57.6 57.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.4 57.8 -0.6 57.8 57.8 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 60.5 60.9 0.4 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3 61.8 0.5 61.8 61.8 0.0 No
Rosedale
Highway
Calloway to Coffee 62.7 63.7 1.0 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
Renfro to Jenkins 55.9 58.6 2.7 58.6 58.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.5 60.5 2.0 60.5 60.5 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 54.7 54.7 0.0 54.6 54.7 0.1 No
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8 59.2 1.4 59.2 59.2 0.0 No
Brimhall
Road
Calloway to Coffee 59.4 60.6 1.2 60.4 60.6 0.2 No
West of Enos 60.4 62.7 2.3 62.7 62.7 0.0 No
Enos to Nord 56.1 59.1 3.0 59.0 59.1 0.1 No
Nord to Wegis 56.7 59.9 3.2 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
Wegis to Heath 57.7 60.1 2.4 60.0 60.1 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 58.0 55.4 -2.6 55.4 55.4 0.0 No
Stockdale
Highway
Renfro to Allen 61.4 59.6 -1.8 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Allen to Buena
Vista
60.9 60.4 -0.5 60.4 60.4 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old
River
59.1 62.2 3.1 61.3 62.2 0.9 No
Old River to
Gosford
61.0 61.8 0.8 61.5 61.8 0.3 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.1 62.8 0.7 62.7 62.8 0.1 No
Ashe to New Stine 62.7 63.3 0.6 63.2 63.3 0.1 No
East of New Stine 67.3 68.3 1.0 68.3 68.3 0.0 No
West Beltway to
Ming Project
Entrance
— 59.7 — 58.2 59.7 1.5 No
Ming Project
Entrance to South
Allen
— 57.6 — 53.2 57.6 4.4 No
South Allen to
Buena Vista
— 57.8 — 56.2 57.8 1.6 No
Buena Vista to Old
River
57.6 61.6 4.0 60.7 61.6 0.9 No
Old River to
Gosford
61.3 63.4 2.1 63.0 63.4 0.4 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.2 63.6 1.4 63.4 63.6 0.2 No
Ashe to New Stine 64.1 65.0 0.9 64.9 65.0 0.1 No
New Stine to “Old”
Stine
63.4 64.1 0.7 63.9 64.1 0.2 No
“Old” Stine to Real 63.4 64.1 0.7 64.1 64.1 0.1 No
Real to Wible 63.4 63.9 0.5 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Ming
Avenue
East of Wible 61.9 63.1 1.2 63.0 63.1 0.1 No
West Beltway to
South Allen
— 62.3 — 61.4 62.3 0.9 No
South Allen to East
White Project
Entrance
— 58.1 — 57.6 58.1 0.5 No
East White
Entrance to Buena
Vista
— 58.1 — 57.6 58.1 0.5 No
Buena Vista to Old
River
57.2 60.2 3.0 59.2 60.2 1.0 No
White Lane
Old River to
Gosford
59.8 62.4 2.6 61.9 62.4 0.5 No
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Gosford to Ashe 62.0 63.8 1.8 63.7 63.8 0.1 No
Ashe to Stine 62.0 63.4 1.4 63.3 63.4 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 63.6 64.4 0.8 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
Wible to SB 99
Ramps
62.7 64.4 1.7 64.4 64.4 0.0 No
SB 99 Ramps to
NB 99 Ramps
61.6 62.2 0.6 62.1 62.2 0.1 No
NB 99 Ramps to
South “H”
60.1 61.3 1.2 61.3 61.3 0.1 No
West of Buena
Vista
57.1 65.3 8.2 65.3 65.3 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old
River
53.5 65.9 12.4 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
Old River to
Gosford
54.1 65.9 11.8 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
Gosford to Ashe 54.1 62.4 8.3 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
Ashe to Stine 56.5 62.5 6.0 62.4 62.5 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 58.0 63.1 5.1 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Wible to SB 99
Ramps
59.8 63.4 3.6 63.4 63.4 0.0 No
SB 99 Ramps to
NB 99 Ramps
59.7 61.9 2.2 61.9 61.9 0.0 No
Panama
Lane
East of NB 99
Ramps
59.6 62.2 2.6 62.2 62.2 0.0 No
West of Buena
Vista
59.3 63.6 4.3 63.6 63.6 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old
River
59.7 64.3 4.6 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Old River to
Gosford
61.7 63.7 2.0 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
Taft
Highway
Gosford to Ashe 59.1 63.9 4.8 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 62.5 63.9 1.4 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
57.7 60.2 2.5 60.2 60.2 0.0 No
Brimhall to
Stockdale
57.7 60.2 2.5 60.2 60.2 0.0 No
Enos Lane
South of Stockdale 57.7 61.3 3.6 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
North of Rosedale 48.7 52.1 3.4 52.1 52.1 0.0 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
57.4 55.0 -2.4 55.0 55.0 0.0 No
Nord Road
Brimhall to
Stockdale
56.1 53.8 -2.3 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
North of Hageman 48.7 50.5 1.8 50.5 50.5 0.0 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
48.7 47.3 -1.4 47.3 47.3 0.0 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
57.4 57.2 -0.2 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Heath Road
Brimhall to
Stockdale
56.8 58.8 2.0 58.7 58.8 0.1 No
North of Hageman 50.4 58.5 8.1 58.3 58.5 0.2 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
53.5 57.9 4.4 57.9 57.9 0.0 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
57.1 58.2 1.1 58.2 58.2 0.0 No
Renfro
Road
Brimhall to
Stockdale
51.7 57.2 5.5 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
50.4 54.1 3.7 54.1 54.1 0.0 No Jenkins
Road
Rosedale to
Brimhall
51.3 53.2 1.9 53.2 53.2 0.0 No
North of Hageman 49.4 51.9 2.5 51.8 51.9 0.1 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
55.3 60.3 5.0 60.2 60.3 0.1 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
55.7 59.9 4.2 59.7 59.9 0.2 No
Brimhall to
Westside Pwy WB
Ramps
55.9 60.7 4.8 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps to
WSP EB Ramps
55.9 60.9 5.0 60.5 60.9 0.4 No
WSP EB Ramps to
Stockdale Hwy
55.9 61.3 5.4 60.4 61.3 0.9 No
Allen Road
Stockdale to Ming 56.1 60.5 4.4 59.0 60.5 1.5 No
Ming to Chamber — 64.6 — 62.7 64.6 1.9 No
Chamber to White — 65.0 — 62.7 65.0 2.3 No
South Allen
Road
White to Campus
Park
— 65.8 — 64.2 65.8 1.6 No
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
North of
Hageman
53.6 56.5 2.9 56.5 56.5 0.0 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
54.7 56.8 2.1 56.7 56.8 0.1 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
53.7 56.4 2.7 56.3 56.4 0.1 No
Brimhall to
Stockdale
54.0 55.1 1.1 54.4 55.1 0.7 No
Ming to Chamber 52.4 61.4 9.0 59.8 61.4 1.6 Yes
Chamber to
White
52.4 61.2 8.8 59.9 61.2 1.4 Yes
White to Campus
Park
52.1 61.1 9.0 58.5 61.1 2.6 Yes
Campus Park to
South Proj
Entrance
52.1 59.9 7.8 58.5 59.9 1.4 Yes
South Proj
Entrance to
Panama Ln
52.1 59.6 7.5 58.6 59.6 1.0 Yes
Panama Ln to
McCutchen
48.1 59.5 11.4 59.4 59.5 0.1 No
Jewetta
Avenue
McCutchen to
Taft Hwy
48.1 54.8 6.7 54.6 54.8 0.2 No
North of
Hageman
49.1 59.7 10.6 59.7 59.7 0.0 No
Hageman to
Rosedale
59.8 62.4 2.6 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
59.4 62.3 2.9 62.2 62.3 0.1 No
Brimhall to
Westside Pkwy
WB Ramps
59.5 62.9 3.4 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps
to WSP EB
Ramps
59.5 63.4 3.9 63.2 63.4 0.2 No
Calloway
Drive
WSP EB Ramps
to Stockdale Hwy
59.5 64.3 4.8 64.0 64.3 0.3 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Stockdale to
Ming
58.9 62.4 3.5 62.4 62.4 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.7 63.2 2.5 63.2 63.2 0.0 No
White to Pacheco 60.4 59.8 -0.6 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Pacheco to
Panama
— ` — 56.3 56.3 0.0 No
Panama to
McCutchen
40.7 55.6 14.9 55.3 55.6 0.3 No
McCutchen to
Taft Hwy
40.7 53.9 13.2 53.4 53.9 0.5 No
Old River
Road
South of Taft
Hwy
54.0 58.0 4.0 57.9 58.0 0.1 No
North of Rosedale 64.7 67.0 2.3 67.0 67.0 0.0 No
Rosedale to
Brimhall
61.8 63.5 1.7 63.4 63.5 0.1 No
Brimhall to
Westside Pkwy
WB Ramps
68.6 69.8 1.2 69.8 69.8 0.0 No
WSP WB Ramps
to WSP EB
Ramps
68.6 70.1 1.5 70.1 70.1 0.0 No
WSP EB Ramps
to Stockdale Hwy
68.6 70.3 1.7 70.3 70.3 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.1 62.7 2.6 62.7 62.7 0.0 No
White to Pacheco 58.5 63.1 4.6 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Pacheco to Harris 57.3 62.1 4.8 61.7 62.1 0.4 No
Harris to Panama 56.0 61.1 5.1 60.7 61.1 0.4 No
Panama to
McCutchen
54.2 60.7 6.5 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Coffee
Road
McCutchen to
Taft
54.2 57.5 3.3 57.3 57.5 0.1 No
Stockdale to
Ming
54.3 55.3 1.0 55.3 55.3 0.0 No
Ming to White 58.7 59.9 1.2 59.9 59.9 0.0 No
Ashe
White to Panama 56.9 59.6 2.7 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-1 (Cont.): Year 2015 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
2015
No
Project
2015
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Panama to
McCutchen
45.7 58.9 13.2 58.9 58.9 0.0 No
McCutchen to
Taft
45.7 56.4 10.7 57.3 57.5 0.2 No
Stockdale to
Ming
61.9 63.1 1.2 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Ming to White 61.0 62.3 1.3 62.3 62.3 0.0 No
White to Panama 58.4 60.7 2.3 60.7 60.7 0.0 No
New Stine
/ Stine
Road
Panama to Taft 54.7 56.4 1.7 56.4 56.4 0.0 No
Chg. - Change
Source: Brown-Buntin & Associates, Inc., May 2006
Table 6-2 shows that the cumulative noise levels for the year 2030. As shown in Table 6-2, the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative noise increase along two roadway segments of
Allen Road and six roadway segments of Buena Vista Road would be considered cumulatively
considerable. Therefore, the project’s increase in noise is considered significant.
Table 6-2: Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
West of Heath — 46.1 — 45.4 46.1 0.7 No
Heath to Renfro — 52.6 — 52.3 52.6 0.3 No
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7 53.6 6.9 53.7 53.6 -0.1 No
Jenkins to Allen 52.3 55.1 2.8 55.1 55.1 0.0 No
Allen to Calloway 56.3 59.8 3.5 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Nord to Heath 62.3 65.0 2.7 64.9 65.0 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 63.4 64.3 0.9 64.2 64.3 0.1 No
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4 57.7 0.3 57.7 57.7 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.4 57.2 -1.2 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 60.5 61.3 0.8 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3 62.1 0.8 62.1 62.1 0.0 No
Hageman
Road
Calloway to Coffee 62.7 64.4 1.7 64.4 64.4 0.0 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-2 (Cont.): Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Renfro to Jenkins 55.9 60.1 4.2 60.1 60.1 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.5 61.8 3.3 61.8 61.8 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 54.7 54.7 0.0 54.6 54.7 0.1 No
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8 60.2 2.4 60.1 60.2 0.1 No
Brimhall
Road
Calloway to Coffee 59.4 61.4 2.0 61.2 61.4 0.2 No
West of Enos 60.4 64.1 3.7 64.0 64.1 0.1 No
Enos to Nord 56.1 60.7 4.6 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Nord to Wegis 56.7 61.5 4.8 61.4 61.5 0.1 No
Wegis to Heath 57.7 61.5 3.8 61.4 61.5 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 58.0 49.1 -8.9 50.0 49.1 -0.9 No
Renfro to Allen 61.4 56.9 -4.5 57.0 56.9 -0.1 No
Allen to Buena Vista 60.9 60.0 0.9 59.8 60.0 0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.1 63.9 4.8 62.6 63.9 1.3 No
Old River to Gosford 61.0 62.4 1.4 61.9 62.4 0.5 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.1 63.4 1.3 63.2 63.4 0.2 No
Ashe to New Stine 62.7 63.7 1.0 63.6 63.7 0.1 No
Stockdale
Highway
East of New Stine 67.3 69.0 1.7 69.0 69.0 0.0 No
West Beltway to Ming
Project Entrance
— 62.5 — 61.0 62.5 1.5 No
Ming Project Entrance to
South Allen
— 60.5 — 56.0 60.5 4.5 No
South Allen to Buena
Vista
— 60.7 — 58.9 60.7 1.8 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.6 63.5 5.9 62.4 63.5 1.1 No
Old River to Gosford 61.3 64.6 3.3 64.1 64.6 0.5 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.2 64.6 2.4 64.3 64.6 0.3 No
Ashe to New Stine 64.1 65.6 1.5 65.5 65.6 0.1 No
New Stine to “Old” Stine 63.4 64.6 1.2 64.4 64.6 0.2 No
“Old” Stine to Real 63.4 64.7 1.3 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
Real to Wible 63.4 64.2 0.8 64.1 64.2 0.1 No
Ming
Avenue
East of Wible 61.9 63.9 2.0 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-2 (Cont.): Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
West Beltway to South
Allen
— 65.1 — 64.1 65.1 1.0 No
South Allen to East White
Project Entrance
— 60.8 — 60.3 60.8 0.5 No
East White Entrance to
Buena Vista
— 60.9 — 60.3 60.9 0.6 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.2 61.9 4.7 60.4 61.9 1.5 No
Old River to Gosford 59.8 63.9 4.1 63.2 63.9 0.7 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.0 65.0 3.0 64.8 65.0 0.2 No
Ashe to Stine 62.0 64.3 2.3 64.1 64.3 0.2 No
Stine to Wible 63.6 64.9 1.3 64.9 64.9 0.1 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 62.7 65.5 2.8 65.4 65.5 0.1 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99
Ramps
61.6 62.6 1.0 62.5 62.6 0.1 No
White
Lane
NB 99 Ramps to South
“H”
60.1 62.2 2.1 62.1 62.2 0.1 No
West of Buena Vista 57.1 67.6 10.5 67.8 67.6 -0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 53.5 68.6 15.1 68.5 68.6 0.1 No
Old River to Gosford 54.1 68.4 14.3 68.5 68.4 -0.1 No
Gosford to Ashe 54.1 64.9 10.8 64.7 64.9 0.2 No
Ashe to Stine 56.5 64.7 8.2 64.6 64.7 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 58.0 65.2 7.2 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 59.8 65.2 5.4 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99
Ramps
59.7 63.2 3.5 63.1 63.2 0.1 No
Panama
Lane
East of NB 99 Ramps 59.6 63.6 4.0 63.6 63.6 0.0 No
West of Buena Vista 59.3 65.4 6.1 65.5 65.4 -0.1 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.7 66.3 6.6 66.3 66.3 0.0 No
Old River to Gosford 61.7 64.8 3.1 64.9 64.8 -0.1 No
Taft
Highway
Gosford to Ashe 59.1 65.9 6.8 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 62.5 64.8 2.3 64.8 64.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.7 61.6 3.9 61.6 61.6 0.0 No
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.7 61.6 3.9 61.6 61.6 0.0 No
Enos
Lane
South of Stockdale 57.7 63.1 5.4 63.0 63.1 0.1 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-2 (Cont.): Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
North of Rosedale 48.7 53.8 5.1 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 50.4 -7.0 50.4 50.4 0.0 No
Nord
Road
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.1 49.7 -6.4 49.7 49.7 0.0 No
North of Hageman 48.7 51.7 3.0 51.7 51.7 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 48.7 45.7 -3.0 45.7 45.7 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 56.6 -0.8 57.0 56.6 -0.3 No
Heath
Road
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.8 60.0 3.2 59.8 60.0 0.2 No
North of Hageman 50.4 60.9 10.5 60.7 60.9 0.2 No
Hageman to Rosedale 53.5 59.8 6.3 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.1 59.0 1.9 59.0 59.0 0.0 No
Renfro
Road
Brimhall to Stockdale 51.7 59.2 7.5 59.3 59.2 -0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 50.4 55.9 5.5 55.9 55.9 0.0 No Jenkins
Road Rosedale to Brimhall 51.3 54.4 3.1 54.4 54.4 0.0 No
North of Hageman 49.4 53.3 3.9 53.2 53.3 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 55.3 62.3 7.0 62.3 62.3 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 55.7 61.7 6.0 61.6 61.7 0.2 No
Brimhall to Westside Pwy
WB Ramps
55.9 62.7 6.8 62.6 62.7 0.2 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP
EB Ramps
55.9 63.0 7.1 62.4 63.0 0.6 No
WSP EB Ramps to
Stockdale Hwy
55.9 63.5 7.6 62.4 63.5 1.1 Yes
Allen
Road
Stockdale to Ming 56.1 62.6 6.5 60.5 62.6 2.1 Yes
Ming to Chamber — 67.5 — 65.5 67.5 2.0 No
Chamber to White — 67.8 — 65.4 67.8 2.4 No
White to Campus Park — 68.7 — 67.0 68.7 1.7 No
Campus Park to Pacheco — 63.5 — 62.0 63.5 1.5 No
Pacheco to Harris — 64.3 — 63.5 64.3 0.8 No
Harris to Panama — 62.2 — 61.8 62.2 0.4 No
Panama to McCutchen — 57.0 — 56.7 57.0 0.3 No
South
Allen
Road
McCutchen to Taft Hwy — 52.6 — 52.4 52.6 0.2 No
North of Hageman 53.6 58.1 4.5 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 54.7 58.1 3.4 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 53.7 58.0 4.3 57.7 58.0 0.3 No
Jewetta
Avenue
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.0 56.0 2.0 54.7 56.0 1.3 No
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-2 (Cont.): Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Stockdale to Ming 58.3 64.3 6.0 63.0 64.3 1.3 Yes
Ming to Chamber 52.4 63.9 11.5 62.1 63.9 1.8 Yes
Chamber to White 52.4 63.8 11.4 62.2 63.8 1.6 Yes
White to Campus Park 52.1 63.7 11.6 60.8 63.7 2.9 Yes
Campus Park to South
Proj Entrance
52.1 62.3 10.2 60.8 62.3 1.5 Yes
South Proj Entrance to
Panama Ln
52.1 62.0 9.9 60.9 62.0 1.1 Yes
Panama Ln to McCutchen 48.1 62.1 14.0 62.0 62.1 0.1 No
Buena
Vista
Road
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 48.1 57.1 9.0 56.9 57.1 0.2 No
North of Hageman 49.1 62.2 13.1 62.3 62.2 -0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 59.8 63.9 4.1 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 59.4 63.9 4.5 63.7 63.9 0.2 No
Brimhall to Westside
Pkwy WB Ramps
59.5 64.7 5.2 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP
EB Ramps
59.5 65.2 5.7 65.0 65.2 0.2 No
Calloway
Drive
WSP EB Ramps to
Stockdale Hwy
59.5 66.3 6.8 65.9 66.3 0.4 No
Stockdale to Ming 58.9 63.9 5.0 64.1 63.9 -0.2 No
Ming to White 60.7 64.5 3.8 64.7 64.5 -0.2 No
White to Pacheco 60.4 59.2 -1.2 59.1 59.2 0.1 No
Pacheco to Panama — 59.1 — 59.0 59.1 0.1 No
Panama to McCutchen 40.7 58.3 17.6 57.9 58.3 0.4 No
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 40.7 56.5 15.8 56.0 56.5 0.5 No
Old River
Road
South of Taft Hwy 54.0 59.9 5.9 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
North of Rosedale 64.7 68.4 3.7 68.4 68.4 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 61.8 64.6 2.8 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Brimhall to Westside
Pkwy WB Ramps
68.6 70.7 2.1 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP
EB Ramps
68.6 71.1 2.5 71.1 71.1 0.0 No
Coffee
Road
WSP EB Ramps to
Stockdale Hwy
68.6 71.3 2.7 71.3 71.3 0.0 No
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Table 6-2 (Cont.): Year 2030 Cumulative Off Site Noise Analysis
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.2030 No
Project
2030
With
Project
Chg.
Cumulatively
Significant?
Stockdale to Ming 62.2 65.5 3.3 65.5 65.5 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.1 64.1 4.0 64.2 64.1 0.1 No
White to Pacheco 58.5 65.0 6.5 65.1 65.0 -0.1 No
Pacheco to Harris 57.3 64.1 6.8 63.7 64.1 0.4 No
Harris to Panama 56.0 63.2 7.2 62.7 63.2 0.5 No
Panama to McCutchen 54.2 63.0 8.8 62.9 63.0 0.1 No
Gosford
Road
McCutchen to Taft 54.2 59.1 4.9 58.9 59.1 0.2 No
Stockdale to Ming 54.3 56.0 1.7 56.0 56.0 0.0 No
Ming to White 58.7 60.7 2.0 60.7 60.7 0.0 No
White to Panama 56.9 61.2 4.3 61.1 61.2 0.1 No
Panama to McCutchen 45.7 61.5 15.8 61.5 61.5 0.0 No
Ashe
Road
McCutchen to Taft 45.7 59.0 13.3 59.0 59.0 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 61.9 63.9 2.0 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Ming to White 61.0 63.1 2.1 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
White to Panama 58.4 62.0 3.6 62.0 62.0 0.0 No
New
Stine /
Stine
Panama to Taft 54.7 57.5 2.8 57.5 57.5 0.0 No
Chg. - Change
Source: Brown-Buntin & Associates, Inc., May 2006
Mitigation Measures
No feasible measures are available.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable. The project’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases would
remain significant; however, the noise levels would be 65 dB CNEL or less which is the City’s
exterior noise level standard.
6.3.9 - Public Services
Fire and Police Services
Impact 6.3.9.A: The proposed project will increase the need for fire and police protection facilities;
however, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable. .
Development resulting from future growth in the area as well as development of the proposed project
will include the introduction of new structures to the area, and an increased risk of fire hazards as the
area transitions from rural to urban. This cumulative development in the project vicinity will result in
a substantial need for fire and police protection services. The proposed project along with future
development will result in the development of new arterial and collector streets that will provide
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
improved access to the project site and the surrounding areas, allowing fire and emergency vehicles
greater access to the area. According to the City of Bakersfield Fire Department, fire station 15 along
with the future fire station projected to be constructed south of the project site within the McAllister
Ranch would adequately serve future development in the project vicinity. The City of Bakersfield
Police Department recently constructed a police substation north of the project site. This new
substation is expected to adequately serve future development as well as the proposed project in the
future. To ensure adequate equipment is provided at the fire stations and police substation that would
serve the project site and other future development sites, the applicants and the City would enter into
a development agreement so that the applicants would provide a fair-share contribution for purchase
of additional fire prevention and police equipment to be used by the Bakersfield Fire Department and
Bakersfield Police Department. In addition to the fair-share contribution, local sales tax revenue
would be generated by operation of commercial and industrial uses to provide additional funds to the
City for fire and police protection. Furthermore, property tax revenues would also be generated by
development projects that could also be used for equipment, facilities, and personnel.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Sections
15.64.010 to 15.64.480, the proposed project and other development projects will be required to
include specific design features such as ensuring appropriate emergency access, and requiring
structures to be built with approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes helps
reduce the risks associated with fire hazards.
Implementation of the proposed project and other future development projects would result in less
than significant cumulative effects related to fire and police protection services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
School Services
Impact 6.3.9.B: The proposed project will result in a substantial increase in students on the project
site. Future developments in the project vicinity are also expected to substantially
increase students. The project’s contribution to cumulative school impacts would
be considered cumulatively considerable. .
Implementation of the proposed project and future growth in the project vicinity is expected to result
in a substantial increase in residences as well as school age children. The proposed project is
projected to increase the number of children by 5,550. This student generation would contribute to
significant cumulative school impacts and would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of 5.9.C.1 is required.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.10 - Recreation
Impact 6.3.10.A: The proposed project will increase the residential population on the project site as
well as provide adequate recreational facilities on the site. Future developments in
the project vicinity are expected to substantially increase the demand for
recreational facilities. Since the project includes adequate recreational facilities, the
project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on recreational facilities. .
Implementation of cumulative development within the project vicinity would increase the demand on
existing recreational facilities. Since the proposed project would include the provision of 56 acres of
public recreational facilities and 35 acres of private recreational facilities, the proposed project would
not contribute to the cumulative demand of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed
project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on existing recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.
6.3.11 - Transportation and Traffic
6.3.11.A: The proposed project will contribute to the cumulative increase in traffic and
exceeding the City’s level of service standard for intersections and roadways. .
To evaluate the cumulative impact of the project and future traffic growth on the transportation
network, traffic projections for Years 2015 and 2030 volumes with the proposed project were
prepared. The cumulative projections were obtained from the KernCOG’s regional traffic model.
Year 2015 and Year 2030 traffic volumes were determined using data from the regional cumulative
projects traffic model prepared by KernCOG. The KernCOG model uses traffic software, which
bases traffic projections on Traffic Analysis Zone (T.A.Z.) Socio-Economic data projected for future
year scenarios. A traffic model run was requested from KernCOG for the Year 2030 with projected
background traffic, traffic attributable to the proposed project, along with traffic from all other future
proposed projects that add traffic to the surrounding roadway network. Future traffic volumes are
based on socio-economic data for all the proposed projects and predicted growth for future years.
This model accounts for cumulative impacts of all proposed projects when performing impact
analysis on the existing and proposed street network. The data from this cumulative projects model
run was used to derive the traffic volumes for analysis of the “Future Year 2015 Projected Volumes
with Project” and the “Future Year 2030 Projected Volumes with Project” scenario. An additional
model run was requested from KernCOG that removed socio-economic data related to the proposed
project which was used to derive the projections for the “Future Year 2015 Projected Volumes
without Project” and the “Future Year 2030 Projected Volumes without Project”. The data from this
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
model run was compared to the data from the cumulative model run to approximate traffic volumes
attributable to the proposed project.
The cumulative traffic data was used to evaluate the cumulative impacts on intersections and
roadways in the years 2015 and 2030.
Year 2015
Year 2015 traffic volume projections were used to analyze project generated traffic impacts at the
time of the anticipated half buildout of the project. This scenario assumed that Westside Parkway and
West Beltway would be operational.
Intersections
With the implementation of cumulative development and a portion of the proposed project in the year
2015, a total of 40 intersections will exceed the City’s established thresholds during either the AM,
PM, or both AM and PM peak hours. The intersections identified below would be affected with the
addition of traffic from cumulative project developments.
• Allen Road and WB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Allen Road and EB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Park (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive(AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Windermere Street (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and NB West Beltway (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive (AM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road (PM Peak)
• Rosedale Hwy & Allen Road (PM Peak)
• Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Brimhall Road and Allen Road (PM Peak)
• Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (AM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Gosford Road (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and New Stine Road (PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Chamber Blvd. (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Ashe Road - (PM Peak)
• White Lane and Wilson Road (PM Peak)
• White Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and SB West Beltway (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Windermere Street (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Gosford Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Reliance Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM Peak)
• McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
Roadway Segments
In the year 2015, the implementation of cumulative development and a portion of the proposed
project would result in 43 roadway segments exceeding the City’s established thresholds. The
roadway segments identified below would be affected with the addition of traffic from cumulative
project developments.
• Stockdale Highway - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
• Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road
• Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway
• Calloway Drive - WB Westside Parkway to EB Westside Parkway
• Calloway Drive - EB Westside Parkway to Stockdale Highway
• Coffee Road - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway
• Coffee Road - WB Westside Parkway to EB Westside Parkway
• Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road
• Rosedale Highway - Calloway Drive to Coffee Road
• Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Stockdale Highway - Nord Avenue to Wegis Road
• Stockdale Highway - Wegis Road to Heath Road
• Stockdale Highway - East of New Stine Road
• Ming Avenue - West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance
• Ming Avenue - Ming Project Entrance to South Allen Road
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road
• Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine Road
• White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road
• White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance
• White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road
• White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps
• Panama Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road
• Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway Ramps
• Allen Road - EB Westside Parkway Ramps to Stockdale Highway
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco Road
• South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
• South Allen Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road
Year 2030
Year 2030 traffic volume projections were used to analyze project generated traffic impacts at the
time of the anticipated buildout of the project. This scenario assumed that Westside Parkway and
West Beltway would be operational.
Intersections
With the implementation of cumulative development and a portion of the proposed project in the year
2030, a total of 60 intersections will exceed the City’s established thresholds during either the AM,
PM, or both AM and PM peak hours. The intersections identified below would be affected with the
addition of traffic from cumulative project developments.
• Allen Road and EB Westside Parkway (AM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and WB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Calloway Drive and EB Westside Parkway (PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Old River (PM Peak)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Ming Avenue and Project Entrance No. 1 (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Gosford Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Chamber Boulevard (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Project Entrance No. 2 (Am and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Windermere Street (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Gosford Road (PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and South Allen Entrance (AM and PM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM Peak)
• Old River Road and Harris Road (AM Peak)
• Buena Vista Road and South Project Entrance (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM Peak)
• Harris Road and Gosford Road (AM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Gosford Road (AM Peak)
• Hageman Road and Calloway Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Rosedale Hwy & Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Brimhall Road and Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue (AM Peak)
• Brimhall Road and Coffee Road (PM Peak)
• Allen Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak)
• Truxtun Avenue and Coffee Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Allen Road (PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and Gosford Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Stockdale Highway and New Stine Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road (PM Peak)
• Ming Avenue and Old Stine Road (PM Peak)
• White Lane and Buena Vista (PM Peak)
• White Lane and Old River (AM and PM Peak)
• White Lane and Ashe Road (AM and PM Peak)
• •White Lane and Wilson Road (PM Peak)
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• White Lane and Stine Road (PM Peak)
• White Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM Peak)
• South Allen Road and Harris Road/Pensinger (AM and PM Peak)
• Harris Road/Pensinger and Buena Vista Road (PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and SB West Beltway (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and NB West Beltway (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Reliance Drive (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Golden Gate/Mountain Ridge (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Stine Road (AM and PM Peak)
• Panama Lane and Wible Road (AM and PM Peak)
• McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road (AM and PM Peak)
• McCutchen Road and Old River Road (AM and PM Peak)
Roadway Segments
In the year 2030, the implementation of cumulative development and a portion of the proposed
project would result in 44 roadway segments exceeding the City’s established thresholds. The
roadway segments identified below would be affected with the addition of traffic from cumulative
project developments.
• Stockdale Highway - Buena Vista Road to Old River Road
• Ming Avenue - Ming Avenue Project Entrance to South Allen Road
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road
• Ming Avenue - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine Road
• Ming Avenue - Old Stine Road to Real
• White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road
• Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway Ramps
• Allen Road - WB Westside Parkway Ramps to EB Westside Parkway Ramps
• Allen Road - EB Westside Parkway Ramps to Stockdale Highway
• Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco
• Buena Vista Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard
• Buena Vista Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane
• Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Buena Vista Road - Campus Park Drive to South Project Entrance
• Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
• Coffee Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Gosford Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
• Buena Vista Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue
• Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road
• Calloway Drive - Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway
• Calloway Drive - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road
• Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway
• Calloway Drive - WB Westside Parkway to EB Westside Parkway
• Calloway Drive - EB Westside Parkway to Stockdale Highway
• Old River Road - South of Taft Highway
• Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road
• Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue
• White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance
• White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road
• White Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• White Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road
• White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps
• Panama Lane -Gosford Road to Ashe Road
• Panama Lane - Ashe Road to Stine Road
• Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road
• Panama Lane - Wible Road to NB 99 Ramps
• South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane
Mitigation Measures
6.3.11.A.1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the
Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program as well as paying the
proportional share for local mitigation improvements (those not covered by the
RTIF). The intersection and roadway improvements that are required with
cumulative development in the years 2015 and 2030 are as follows:
2015
Intersection
• Rosedale Hwy & Allen Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
\
• Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive - Construct one northbound left turn lane,
one northbound right turn lane, and one eastbound through lane.
• Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road - Construct one eastbound through lane and
one westbound through lane.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Brimhall Road and Allen Road - Construct one southbound through lane
• Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
• Ming Avenue and South Allen Road - Provide all-way-stop.
• Ming Avenue and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and
one northbound right turn lane - “Providing Full expansion per COB std Det T-4.”
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane and one
northbound right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and New Stine Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
• Buena Vista Road and Chamber Blvd. - Install signal.
• White Lane and South Allen Road - Install signal.
• White Lane and Buena Vista Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane and
one southbound through lane.
• White Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and one
westbound left turn lane.
• White Lane and Wilson Road - Construct one southbound right turn lane.
• White Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound through lane.
• Buena Vista Road and Campus Park Drive - Install signal.
• South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Install signal.
• Panama Lane and West Beltway - Install signal and construct one westbound left
turn lane, two southbound right turn lanes, and one eastbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and West Beltway - Install signal and construct two eastbound left
turn lanes, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one
westbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Install signal and construct two eastbound
left turn lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, two
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
southbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane, and one eastbound
through lane.
• Panama Lane and Windermere Street - Construct one eastbound through lane and
one westbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - Install signal and construct one eastbound
left turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound right turn lane, one
northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, and one eastbound
through lane.
• Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive - Construct one eastbound through lane
and one westbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one northbound through lane and one
southbound left turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Reliance Drive - Install signal.
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Install signal and construct one southbound left
turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound through lane, one
southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase for northbound right turn
lane.
• McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road - Provide all-way-stop.
Roadway Segment
• Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes.
• Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to WB Westside Parkway - Add two lanes
• Calloway Drive -Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes
• Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway -
Add two lanes
• Coffee Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two
lanes.
• Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes.
• Rosedale Highway - Calloway Drive to Coffee Road - Add two lanes.
• Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue - Construct divided roadway.
• Stockdale Highway - Nord Avenue to Wegis Road - Add two lanes.
• Stockdale Highway - Wegis Road to Heath Road - Add two lanes
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-32 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Stockdale Highway - East of New Stine Road - Add two lanes.
• Ming Avenue - West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance - Construct two lane
roadway
• Ming Avenue - Ming Project Entrance to South Allen Road - Construct two lane
roadway
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Construct two lane
roadway.
• Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine Road - Add two lanes.
• White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road - Construct two lane roadway.
• White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance - Construct two
lane roadway.
• White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road - Construct two lane
roadway.
• White Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
• Panama Lane -Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes, construct as divided
roadway.
• Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
• Allen Road - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add two
lanes.
• Allen Road -Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add
two lanes.
• South Allen Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard - Construct two lane
roadway
• South Allen Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane - Construct two lane
roadway
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Construct two lane
divided roadway
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco - Construct two lane divided
roadway
• South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road - Construct four lane roadway
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Construct two lane divided
roadway
• South Allen Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Construct two lane
roadway.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
2030
Intersection
• Buena Vista Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Install signal.
• Hageman Road and Calloway Drive - Construct one northbound through lane and
one southbound through lane.
• Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive - Construct one eastbound left turn lane
and one westbound left turn lane.
• Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one
westbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, and provide overlapping
phase for northbound right turn lane.
• Rosedale Highway & Allen Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
• Brimhall Road and Allen Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
• Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue - Construct one southbound through lane.
• Brimhall Road and Coffee Road - Construct one northbound left turn lane.
• Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one
westbound left turn lane and one westbound right turn lane.
• Calloway Drive and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct two
northbound left turn lanes, one northbound through lane, and one southbound
through lane.
• Calloway Drive and EB Westside Parkway - Channelize eastbound right turn lane;
and construct one southbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, and one
southbound through lane.
• Truxtun Avenue and Coffee Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
• Stockdale Highway and Allen Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane and
provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
• Stockdale Highway and Old River Road - Construct one westbound through lane
“for Full expansion per COB Det T-4.
• Stockdale Highway and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane
and one northbound right turn lane.
• Stockdale Highway and New Stine Road - Construct eastbound left turn lane, one
northbound right turn lane, and one southbound through lane.
• Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane,
one northbound turn lane, and one southbound through lane.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-34 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Ming Avenue and Ashe Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and New Stine Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane and
one westbound right turn lane.
• Ming Avenue and Old Stine Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane.
• White Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one northbound through lane.
• White Lane and Buena Vista - Construct one westbound right turn lane.
• White Lane and Old River - Construct one northbound through lane and provide
overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
• White Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane, one
southbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, and one northbound
through lane.
• White Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane and one
northbound left turn lane.
• White Lane and Wilson Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane.
• White Lane and Stine Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane and one
southbound right turn lane.
• White Lane and Wible Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one
northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and provide overlapping phase
for northbound right turn lane.
• South Allen Road and Harris/Pensinger Road - Construct one eastbound left turn
lane, two eastbound right turn lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one westbound
right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, one
southbound right turn lane, one southbound through lane, and provide overlapping
phase for southbound right turn lane.
• Harris Road and Old River Road - Construct one northbound through lane and one
southbound through lane.
• Harris Road and Gosford Road - Construct one southbound left turn lane.
• Panama Lane and West Beltway Southbound Ramps - Channelize southbound
right turn lane; and construct one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound through
lane, and one eastbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and West Beltway Northbound Ramps - Construct one westbound
right turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane and one
westbound through lane.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Panama Lane and South Allen Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane, one
northbound right turn lane, one westbound through lane, and provide overlapping
phases for westbound right turn lane and southbound right lane.
• Panama Lane and Buena Vista Road - One eastbound left turn lane, one
northbound right turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one eastbound through
lane, one southbound through lane, two northbound through lanes, two westbound
through lanes, and provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Mountain Vista Drive - Install signal.
• Panama Lane and Reliance Drive - Construct two eastbound through lanes, one
westbound through lane, and one westbound left turn lane.
• Panama Lane and Ashe Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, one
westbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, two eastbound through
lanes, one westbound through lane, and one southbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and Golden Gate/Mountain Ridge Drive - Install signal.
• Panama Lane and Stine Road - Construct one eastbound through lane.
• Panama Lane and Wible Road - Construct one westbound left turn lane.
• McCutchen Road and Buena Vista Road - Install signal and construct one
eastbound left turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one southbound left turn
lane, and one southbound right turn lane.
• McCutchen Road and Old River Road - Install signal.
• McCutchen Road and Gosford Road - Install signal.
Roadway Segment
• Buena Vista Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - Add two lanes.
• Buena Vista Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Construct as divided
roadway.
• Calloway Drive - Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway - Add two lanes.
• Calloway Drive - Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road - Add two lanes.
• Calloway Drive - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Add
two lanes.
• Calloway Drive -Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
• Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway -
Add two lanes, construct as divided roadway.
• Old River Road - South of Taft Avenue - Add two lanes.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Gosford Road - Panama Lane to McCutchen Road - Add two lanes, construct as
divided roadway.
• Gosford Road - McCutchen Road to Taft Highway - Construct as divided roadway.
• Stockdale Highway - Enos Road to Nord Avenue - Add two lanes.
• Ming Avenue - South Allen Road to Buena Vista Road - Construct as divided
roadway.
• Ming Avenue - Old Stine Road to Real Road - Add two lanes.
• White Lane - West Beltway to South Allen Road - Construct as divided roadway.
• White Lane - South Allen Road to White Lane Project Entrance - Add two lanes
• White Lane - White Lane Entrance to Buena Vista Road - Add two lanes roadway.
• White Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
• White Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
• White Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
• Panama Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add two lanes.
• Panama Lane - Ashe Road to Stine Road - Add two lanes.
• Panama Lane - Stine Road to Wible Road - Add two lanes.
• Panama Lane - Wible Road to SR 99 Southbound Ramps - Add two lanes.
• Allen Road - Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct
as divided roadway.
• Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps - Construct as divided roadway.
• Allen Road -Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway -
Construct as divided roadway.
• South Allen Road - White Lane to Campus Park Drive - Construct as divided
roadway.
• South Allen Road - Campus Park Drive to Pacheco Road - Construct as divided
roadway.
• South Allen Road - Pacheco Road to Harris Road - Add two lanes, construct as
divided roadway.
• South Allen Road - Harris Road to Panama Lane - Construct as divided roadway.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable. After the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the
cumulative development along with the proposed project would result in the degradation of a level of
service that began at or below LOS C without the project. The following facilities would experience
a significant and unavoidable impact. The level of service after mitigation is provided below.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
• Ming Avenue from Ashe Road to New Stine Road (LOS B to LOS D);
• Calloway Drive from Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS A to
E);
• White Lane from Wible Road to Southbound 99 Ramps (LOS C to LOS D);
• Calloway Drive from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS A to
LOS E);
• Coffee Road from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (LOS A to LOS E);
and
• Coffee Road from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound
Ramps (LOS A to LOS E).
Impacts to the remaining roadway segments and all of the intersections would be less than significant
after implementation of the above mitigation measures.
6.3.12 - Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the proposed project and future development projects in the vicinity of the project
site would result in additional demands on water, sewer, drainage, and solid waste facilities.
Water
Impact 6.3.12.A: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity will increase the water demand from the City of Bakersfield. The
project’s contribution to cumulative water demand is considered less than
cumulatively considerable. .
The build out of the proposed project as well as other development projects over the next 20 years
will increase the demand for water from the City of Bakersfield. According to the SB 221/SB 610
Water Supply Assessment, the future year 2025 supply of water from the Kern River, State Water
Project, and reclaimed water available to the City is projected to be a range of 240,250 acre-feet per
year (single dry year) to 357,725 acre-feet per year (normal year) of water compared to a projected
demand within the City’s water service area of 50,375 acre-feet per year of water. As a result, the
project’s contribution to cumulative water demand is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Impact 6.3.12.B: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity will result in the construction of new water facilities which could
cause environmental effects. .
As the proposed project is phased and other projects are developed, additional water facilities will be
required. The proposed project includes onsite water wells; and, the project will require offsite water
facilities to be built to serve the project. Water facilities associated with other projects may also
result in environmental effects. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with the construction of water facilities for other development would be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.12.B.1 is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Wastewater
Impact 6.3.12.C: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity will result in the construction of new wastewater facilities which
could cause significant environmental effects. .
The development of the proposed project as well as other projects in the vicinity will increase the
demand on the existing sewer facilities in the vicinity of the project site (i.e., the existing sewer lift
station on the project site and the existing trunk sewer lines that convey wastewater from the project
vicinity to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3). This increased demand may result in the
need for expanded or new sewer facilities. The potential construction of these facilities may result in
significant environmental impacts. The proposed project’s contribution to the demand for sewer
facilities as well as the potential effects associated with construction activities would be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures 5.12.B.1, 5.12.C.2, and 5.12.C.3 are required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Stormwater and Drainage
Impact 6.3.12.D: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity will result in the construction of new drainage facilities which
could cause significant environmental effects. .
As development occurs on the project site as well as in the vicinity of the site, drainage facilities will
be required. The proposed project includes a series of onsite retention and detention facilities and
storm drain lines that connect these facilities. Future development that occur in the project vicinity
will also be required to construct drainage facilities to adequately accommodate projected storm water
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Cumulative Impacts
Michael Brandman Associates 6-39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
flows. However, these drainage facilities would occur off the project site. Because the proposed
project includes an onsite drainage system, it would not result in the need to construct offsite
facilities. As a result the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts associated with the
construction of drainage facilities is considered less than cumulatively considerable and therefore less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Solid Waste and Landfills
Impact 6.3.12.E: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity could be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate cumulative solid waste disposal needs. .
The development of the proposed project and cumulative development within the City would increase
the generation of solid waste. Solid waste facilities are planned by the Kern County Waste
Management Department, and the anticipated disposal capacity of the Bena Landfill based on growth
projections is the year 2018. As disposal capacity reduces, the County plans for additional landfill
capacity through expansions or new landfills. Implementation of the proposed project and future
development projects would reduce existing landfill capacities; however, this reduction is not
inconsistent with the County’s projections. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact on landfill capacity would be considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
6.3.13 - Population and Housing
Impact 6.3.13.A: The implementation of the proposed project as well as other future development in
the project vicinity will induce substantial population growth in the project area. .
The development of the proposed project and future development projects in the vicinity of the
project site would substantially increase housing and population in the project vicinity. The City is
anticipated to increase its population by approximately 189,725 and its housing by approximately
90,659 from 2006 to 2030. These growth projections are considered to include the population and
housing anticipated from the proposed project as well as cumulative development. Therefore, the
proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on projected population and housing growth
is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Impacts West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
6-40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec06-00 CumulativeImpacts.doc
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
West 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.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
Michael Brandman Associates 8-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec08-00 Other CEQA.doc
SECTION 8: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), an EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable
impacts that will result from a project. Moreover, these guidelines state that an EIR should explain
the implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding
such impacts. Implementation of the West Ming Specific Plan development will result in the
alteration of the physical environment. Section 5, Project Impacts and Section 6, Cumulative
Impacts, of this Draft EIR provide a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project, as well as measures to reduce the environmental impacts to the maximum extent
feasible. After implementation of the West Ming Specific Plan development and the project related
mitigation measures, it has been determined that with the exception of traffic impacts, noise impacts
and agricultural resources impacts, as summarized below, all project-related impacts can be feasibly
mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.
• With the addition of project-related traffic, intersections and roadway segments will exceed the
established thresholds for the Years 2015 and 2030 even with the improvements that are
required for the Years 2015 and 2030 without project. After implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in the degradation of a
level of service that began at or below LOS C for the following (roadway segments):
- Ming Avenue - Ashe Road to New Stine (LOS D)
- White Lane - Wible Road to SB 99 Ramps (LOS D)
- Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway (LOS E)
Therefore, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to these
roadway segments. Notably, impacts to intersections would be less than significant after
implementation of the mitigation measures.
• The proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative noise increase along the following
roadway segments would be considered cumulatively considerable; therefore, the project’s
increase in noise is considered significant.
- Buena Vista Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue (Year 2030)
- Buena Vista Road - Ming Avenue to Chamber Boulevard (Years 2015 and 2030)
- Buena Vista Road - Chamber Boulevard to White Lane (Years 2015 and 2030)
- Buena Vista Road - White Lane to Campus Park (Years 2015 and 2030)
- Buena Vista Road -Campus Park to South Project Entrance (Years 2015 and 2030)
- Buena Vista Road - South Project Entrance to Panama Lane (Years 2015 and 2030)
- Allen Road - Westside Parkway EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway (Year 2015)
- Allen Road - Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue (Year 2015)
Other CEQA Considerations West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
8-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec08-00 Other CEQA.doc
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; however, the noise levels
along each segment would be 65 dB CNEL or less which is the City’s exterior noise level
standard.
• No feasible mitigation measures are available for the project applicant that would reduce the
impacts on agricultural resources to less than significant. Approval and implementation of the
Specific Plan and corresponding land use change will result in a commitment of approximately
2,182 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the City of Bakersfield
includes in this commitment, the loss of approximately 1,204 acres of soil capability Class I
and II prime agricultural farmland that is irrigated by 8 active agricultural water wells. The
current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation of the majority of the
project site as R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture), R-MP (Resource - Mineral Petroleum)
and OS (Open Space) do not allow for urban development of the site. In addition, the current
City zoning of A-20A (Agriculture Zone, 20 acre minimum), the current Kern County zoning
of A (Exclusive Agriculture), 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) that would be re-
zoned to allow for urban development of the site would conflict with the existing on-site
zoning that allows agricultural activities. There is little that can be accomplished on the project
site that will reduce impacts on agricultural resources and thus these impacts are considered to
be significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Specific Plan project.
8.2 - Growth Inducing Impacts
This section evaluates the potential for the West Ming development to affect “economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment” (CEQA Guidelines, 15126.2[d]).
There are two types of growth inducing impacts a project may have, direct and indirect. To assess the
potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project characteristics that may encourage and facilitate
activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated.
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community that directly induces population growth or the construction of additional developments in
the same area of the proposed project, thereby triggering related growth-associated impacts. Included
in this analysis are projects that would remove physical obstacles to population growth (such as a new
road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant that could allow more construction in
the service area). Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated
from the development they trigger. In contrast, projects that physically remove obstacles to growth
and projects that indirectly induce growth are those which may provide a catalyst for future unrelated
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations
Michael Brandman Associates 8-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec08-00 Other CEQA.doc
development in an area (such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial
uses to support residents).
Implementation of the proposed project will result in growth inducement indirectly through the
construction of project area circulation and directly with the construction of the residential units and
commercial and industrial structures. However, the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan
encourages the orderly outward expansion of new urban development that maintains the continuity of
existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services. The
project does not introduce any new offsite arterials, collectors, or interchanges not already outlined in
the General Plan. The project does not introduce new public service facilities not already outlined in
the General Plan and potable water will be supplied by the groundwater basin below the site via
existing water wells. Thus, the project is not introducing any new facilitation to growth inducement
not already envisioned to be needed to accommodate planned future growth. Hence, while it is
recognized that the project will induce growth in the project area, such growth is in concurrence with
the City’s planned growth policies.
8.3 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resource
The environmental effects associated with the development of the West Ming project are summarized
in Table 2-1 and in Section 5 and Section 6 of this document. Implementation of the proposed project
will require a long-term commitment of land as discussed below. More specifically the primary
effect of development under the proposed project would be the commitment of approximately 2,182
acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses. The financial and material investments that would
be required of the applicant and the City would result in further commitments of land resources
making it unlikely that the same or similar uses would continue in the future. Implementation of the
proposed project represents a long-term commitment to urbanization.
Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in
alterations of the physical environment. In order to develop the proposed project, existing Prime
Farmland would be irrevocably committed to non-agricultural uses. If the proposed project is
approved, and subsequently implemented, new structures would be built, additional utilities would be
constructed, and circulation improvements would be made. Nonrenewable resources would be
committed, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, and would include fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline
used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of the West Ming project. The
consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources would result from development of
the proposed project. These resources would include, but not be limited to, lumber and other forest
products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and
water. Because alternative energy sources such as solar or wind energy are not currently in
widespread local use, it is unlikely that a real savings in nonrenewable energy supplies (i.e., oil and
gas) could be realized in the immediate future.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Organizations and Persons Consulted
Michael Brandman Associates 9-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec09-00 Orgs and Consults.doc
SECTION 9: ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
9.1 - Public Agencies
City of Bakersfield
Planning Department.............................................................................................................Jim Movius
Jennie Eng
Parks Department.....................................................................................................................Allen Abe
Public Works Department...................................................................................................Marian Shaw
Jim Holladay
Fire Department...............................................................................................................Dave Weirather
Water Department...................................................................................................................Florn Core
Traffic Engineering.............................................................................................................Bruce Deeter
9.2 - Private Organizations
McIntosh & Associates......................................................................................................Gregg Buckle
Darcie Larman
Stephen M. Letsky
Archaeological Associates of Kern County (AAKC)..............................................Robert A. Schiffman
Alan P. Gold
Soils Engineering, Inc...........................................................................................................Bob Becker
Tony Frangie
Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc.............................................................................................Bill Thiessen
Provost and Pritchard...........................................................................................................Brian Ehlers
Paul Pruett & Associates.........................................................................................................Paul Pruett
Steve Pruett
WZI, Inc...............................................................................................................................Fred Woody
Claude Fiddler, P.E..................................................................................................Claude Fiddler, P.E.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Report Preparation Personnel
Michael Brandman Associates 10-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec10-00 Report Prep.doc
SECTION 10: REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Bakersfield
Principal Planner.....................................................................................................................Jennie Eng
Michael Brandman Associates
Project Director............................................................................................Michael E. Houlihan, AICP
Environmental Analyst............................................................................................................Kara Palm
Lisa A. Fisher
Steven R. Snyder
Lori Trottier
Kristen M. Garcia
Biologist...........................................................................................................................Scott Crawford
Karl Osmundson
Archaeologist.......................................................................................................................Michael Dice
Air Quality Specialist....................................................................................................Michael Hendrix
Geographic Information Systems.......................................................................................Mike Serrano
Graphic Artist..................................................................................................................Karlee Haggins
Word Processor.................................................................................................................Angel Penatch
Publications Coordinator..................................................................................................Sandra Tomlin
Reprographics......................................................................................................................Jose Morelos
Archaeological Associates of Kern County (AAKC)
Cultural Resources Survey......................................................................................Robert A. Schiffman
Alan P. Gold
McIntosh and Associates
Farmland Conversion Study...............................................................................................Gregg Buckle
Darcie Larman
Stephen M. Letsky
Flood Study.....................................................................................................................Blaine Neptune
Hazardous Materials Evaluation................................................................................Roger A. McIntosh
Public Service Study........................................................................................................Darcie Larman
Traffic Impact Study..........................................................................................................Gregg Buckle
Lake Report.....................................................................................................................Blaine Neptune
Soils Engineering, Inc.
Geological Feasibility Study / Geological Hazard Study......................................................Bob Becker
Tony Frangie
Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc.
Environmental Noise Assessment.......................................................................................Bill Thiessen
Paul Pruett & Associates
Biota Report............................................................................................................................Paul Pruett
WZI, Inc.
Air Quality Assessment........................................................................................................Fred Woody
Provost and Pritchard
Water Assessment Report.....................................................................................................Brian Ehlers
Report Preparation Personnel West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
10-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec10-00 Report Prep.doc
Claude Fiddler, P.E.
Natural Resources Impact Report............................................................................Claude Fiddler, P.E.
Compatibility and Safety Assessment......................................................................Claude Fiddler, P.E.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR References
Michael Brandman Associates 11-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec11-00 References.doc
SECTION 11: REFERENCES
Archeological Associates of Kern County. 2005. Cultural Resource Survey of West Ming Specific
Plan A 2,181.46 Acre Development in Southwest Bakersfield, Kern County, California.
April.
Bakersfield, City of. 2002. Final Program Environmental Impact Report - Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan Update. June.
Bakersfield, City of. 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. December.
Bakersfield, City of. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Bakersfield, City of. 2002. Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
Bakersfield, City of. 2003. City of Bakersfield Housing Element of the General Plan. January.
Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. 2006. Environmental Noise Assessment. February 2004, Revised
August 2006.
Fiddler, Claude David. 2004. Natural Resources Impact Report. June.
McIntosh and Associates. 2005. Farmland Conversion Study. April.
McIntosh and Associates. 2005. Flood Study for West Ming Specific Plan, Bakersfield, California.
May.
McIntosh and Associates. 2005. Hazardous Materials Evaluation for West Ming Specific Plan.
April.
McIntosh and Associates. 2006. Public Service Report for West Ming Specific Plan, Bakersfield,
California. September 2005, Revised August 2006.
McIntosh and Associates. 2005. West Ming Specific Plan Lake Report. August.
McIntosh and Associates. 2006. Traffic Impact Study for West Ming Specific Plan for Portions of
Sections 10 and 15, Sections 11, 13, and 14, Township 30 South, Range 26 East Annexation,
Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. March.
Paul Pruett and Associates. 2006. Biota Report for 2,181+/- Acres, Sections 10 (East Portion), 11,
13, 14 and 15 (NE Corner), T30S, R26E, MDM for West Ming Specific Plan, Kern County,
California. August.
Provost and Pritchard. 2006. SB 610 Water Assessment Report for The West Ming Specific Plan.
Revision 6, August 2006.
Soils Engineering, Inc. 2004. Geotechnical Feasibility study and GeoHazard. February.
State of California. 2005. California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines.
State of California. 2005. California Public Resources Code.
References West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
11-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec11-00 References.doc
State of California, Department of Finance. 2006. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2006, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California. May.
West Ming Specific Plan, Bakersfield, California. April 2006.
WZI, Inc. 2006. Air Quality Assessment, West Ming Specific Plan, Kern County, California. July.