HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 2_RTC_West Ming Specific Plan - Recirculated Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Recirculated DEIR\02160029_ Recirculated DEIR.doc
Chapter 2: Response to Comments and
Supporting Technical Information
Response to Comments to
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
December 8, 2006
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec00-TOC with fields.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Purpose.............................................................................................................1-1
Section 2: Project Description..........................................................................................2-1
Section 3: List of Commentors.........................................................................................3-1
Section 4: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR (September 2006).......................4-1
4.1 - Introduction......................................................................................................4-1
4.2 - Comment Letters and Responses....................................................................4-1
4.3 - State Agencies.................................................................................................4-7
4.4 - Regional Agencies.........................................................................................4-29
4.5 - County Agencies............................................................................................4-33
4.6 - Private Organizations and Persons................................................................4-59
4.7 - Planning Commission Hearing - October 5, 2006..........................................4-83
Section 5: Project Description..........................................................................................5-1
5.1 - Revisions to Draft EIR and Appendices...........................................................5-1
5.2 - Summary of Technical Studies and Other Information Prepared after the
Release of the Draft EIR................................................................................5-16
ATTACHMENTS1
Attachment 1: Revised Traffic Report
Attachment 2: Updated Natural Resources Impact Report
Attachment 3: Revised Flood Study
Attachment 4: Revised Lake Report
Attachment 5: Revised Water Supply Assessment
Attachment 6: Housing Needs Analysis
Attachment 7: Urban Decay Study
Attachment 8: Fiscal Impact Analysis
1 attachments are on the CD located inside the back cover of this Response to Comments document.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Purpose
Michael Brandman Associates 1-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec01-Purpose.doc
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2005051055) for the West
Ming Specific Plan project was circulated for public review and comment beginning on August 31,
2006 and ending on October 14, 2006. In accordance with Section 15088 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Bakersfield, as the lead agency, has
evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR for the West Ming Specific Plan project and has
prepared written responses to the comments received. The responses to the comments and other
documents, including technical appendices and other information contained within the environmental
record, together with the Draft EIR, constitute the final EIR for use by the Bakersfield City Council
and other decision makers in their review of the West Ming Specific Plan project.
This Response to Comments document is organized as follows:
• Section 1 - Purpose
• Section 2 - Project Description
• Section 3 - List of Commentors. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals
that commented on the Draft EIR.
• Section 4 - Response to Comments. Includes a copy of all of the letters received. This section
also provides Response to Comments on environmental issues describing the disposition of the
issues, explaining the EIR analysis, supporting the EIR conclusions, and/or providing
information or corrections as appropriate. This section is organized with the responses to each
comment letter following the corresponding letter.
• Section 5 - Errata. Includes a list of all the revisions to the Draft EIR and new information to
be included as part of the administrative record.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Project Description
Michael Brandman Associates 2-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec02-Project Description.doc
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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, Federal Emergency Management Agency conditional and final
letters of map revisions, and State Reclamation Board encroachment permit. 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.
The project sponsor has identified the following objectives for the proposed project:
• 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;
• Establish a new mixed use center as defined in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan;
• 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;
• Provide a full mix of land uses to support the project’s population;
• Provide employment opportunities to assist in meeting the Kern COG employment growth
projections for the City;
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Project Description Response to Comments
2-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec02-Project Description.doc
• Provide residential uses to meet the housing demand specified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan Land Use Element;
• 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;
• Provide a range of housing types on the project site;
• 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;
• Locate development to meet anticipated growth in areas of relatively lesser environmental
sensitivity, accommodating growth while balancing environmental conditions;
• Provide parks which satisfy park dedication requirements and meet recreational needs of local
residents including both active and passive recreational facilities;
• Locate a master planned community adjacent to major highway arterials to better promote
efficient traffic flows and minimize traffic demand on local and collector streets;
• Cluster as much housing as possible near major traffic arterials to minimize congestion, air
quality, noise, and safety impact on collector and neighborhood streets; and
• Promote growth in areas directed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments List of Commentors
Michael Brandman Associates 3-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec03-List of Commentors.doc
SECTION 3: LIST OF COMMENTORS
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is
presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation. Each comment
within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be crossed-
referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. A list of individuals
that provided comments on the Draft EIR during the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission public
hearing held on October 5, 2006, is also provided below.
Commentor Author Code
State Agencies
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearing House
and Planning Unit - October 17, 2006 OPR
State of California, Department of Water Resources - September 20, 2006 DWR
State of California, Department of Transportation - October 10, 2006 CALTRANS-1
State of California, Department of Transportation - October 25, 2006 CALTRANS-2
State of California, Department of Conservation - October 16, 2006 CDC
Regional Agencies
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - October 17, 2006 SJVAPCD
County Agencies
Kern County Roads Department, Resource Management Agency - September 21, 2006 RMA-1
Kern County Roads Department, Resource Management Agency - October 9, 2006 RMA-2
Kern County Water Agency - October 16, 2006 KCWA
Kern County Superintendent of Schools - October 11, 2006 KCSS
City Agencies
City of Bakersfield, Development Services Department - September 19, 2006 DS
Private Organizations and Persons
Crimson Resource Management - October 5, 2006 CRM-1
Foothill Energy - October 16, 2006 FH
Tejon Indian Tribe - September 27, 2006 TT
Sierra Club, Gordon Nipp - October 5, 2006 SC-1
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
List of Commentors Response to Comments
3-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec03-List of Commentors.doc
Planning Commission Hearing - October 5, 2006
Sierra Club, Gordon Nipp - October 5, 2006 SC-2
Crimson Resource Management - October 5, 2006 CRM-2
Phillip Ryle - October 5, 2006 PR
Commissioner McGinnis - October 5, 2006 CM
Commissioner Tragish - October 5, 2006 CT
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
SECTION 4: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
(SEPTEMBER 2006)
4.1 - Introduction
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the City of Bakersfield as the lead agency evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2005051055) for the West Ming Specific Plan Project and the comments received
during the public hearing held on October 5, 2006 at the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
meeting and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to
Comments document is part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with Section 15132 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
4.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters and responses are provided on the following pages. The letters follow the same
organization as used in Section 3.0, List of Commentors.
OPR-1
OPR
PAGE1OF4
OPR
PAGE2OF4
OPR
PAGE3OF4
OPR
PAGE4OF4
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
4.3 - State Agencies
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearing House
and Planning Unit - October 17, 2006 (OPR)
Response to Comment OPR-1
Comment is noted, and it is acknowledged that the Draft EIR was distributed to selected state
agencies for review. No specific comments on the Draft EIR were provided; therefore, no further
response is necessary.
DWR-1
DWR
PAGE1OF4
DWR
PAGE2OF4
DWR
PAGE3OF4
DWR
PAGE4OF4
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
State of California, Department of Water Resources - September 20, 2006 (DWR)
Response to Comment DWR-1
As discussed on page 5.7-2 of the Draft EIR, a portion of the project site is located within a
designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. The portion of
the site immediately adjacent to the Kern River is located within the Kern River Designated
Floodway (i.e., State of California Adopted Plan of Flood Control) which was established by the
Department of Water Resources and adopted by the Reclamation Board. This portion of the site
encompasses approximately 3.7 acres. It is noted that an encroachment permit from the Reclamation
Board will be required with the construction of the proposed levee as well as any other improvements
south of the levee and within the 3.7 acres area. The following is added to the end of Page 3-39 of the
Draft EIR.
State Reclamation Board
Encroachment Permit
The project will require an encroachment permit for the proposed extension of the existing
levee as well as any other improvements within the existing Kern River Designated
Floodway.
The effects of implementing the proposed levee have been addressed in the Draft EIR, and the
addition of the above action does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR.
CALTRANS-1
PAGE1OF1
CALTRANS-1-1
CALTRANS-1-2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
State of California, Department of Transportation - October 10, 2006 (CALTRANS-1)
Response to Comment CALTRANS-1-1
A Draft EIR was provided to CALTRANS via distribution from the State Clearinghouse (please see
the letter received from the California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research dated, October
17, 2006). As part of the Draft EIR, the Traffic Impact Study was included as Appendix L of the
Draft EIR and was available for public review during the review period that began August 31, 2006
and ended on October 14, 2006. In accordance with CALTRANS request, McIntosh & Associates
forwarded a copy of the revised Traffic Impact Study to CALTRANS District 6 on October 10, 2006.
Please see Response to Comments on CALTRANS-2-1.
Response to Comment CALTRANS-1-2
It is noted that CALTRANS has requested a response to their comments prior to staff’s
recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. As is required by the California
Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a), the lead agency must provide any responses to public
agency comments at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR.
CALTRANS-2
PAGE1OF1
CALTRANS-2-1
CALTRANS-2-2
CALTRANS-2-3
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
State of California, Department of Transportation - October 25, 2006 (CALTRANS-2)
Response to Comment CALTRANS-2-1
Project generated traffic volumes utilized in the Traffic Report (Traffic Impact Study [TIS]) are based
upon the KernCOG cumulative projects traffic model. Project volumes are approximated by
comparing relative volumes contained in the With Project model and the Without Project model for
each intersection within the project study area.
The Traffic Impact Study that is in Appendix L of the Draft EIR has been modified to include the
appendices that were referenced in the Traffic Impact Study as well as some modifications and
clarifications of the information in the Traffic Impact Study (see Attachment 1 in this Response to
Comments Document). The modifications and clarifications are specified in Section 5, Errata, of this
Response to Comments and do not substantially alter the conclusions that are presented in the Traffic
Impact Study. The revised Traffic Impact Study is the version that was sent to CALTRANS for
review on October 10, 2006 and is currently available for public review at the City of Bakersfield
Planning Department at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
In comparing the model volumes at the intersection of White Lane and Old River Road, the difference
in daily volumes between the two models equates to 6,000 vehicles average annual daily traffic
(AADT). Assuming that the PM peak hour volumes are approximately one-tenth of the total AADT,
this would equate to approximately 600 project-related trips during the PM peak hour. For the
intersection of White Lane and Buena Vista Road, the comparison of the model volumes results in
21,600 AADT project vehicles and thus 2,160 project related PM peak hour trips. The TIS analyzed
these intersections with 683 project-related trips at White Lane and Old River Road for the PM peak
hour and 3,093 project-related trips at the intersection of White Land and Buena Vista Road.
Therefore, the TIS conservatively analyzed project-related trips at these two intersections.
In addition McIntosh & Associates, Inc. prepared a manual distribution analysis of the project related
traffic for the traffic facilities immediately adjacent to the project vicinity so that the traffic volumes
at the project-created intersections and entrances coincide with the total project trip generation
volumes presented in the TIS. For traffic facilities not immediately adjacent to the project site, traffic
generated by the project is approximated based on the KernCOG model runs as detailed above and in
the TIS. Because the KernCOG model results provide only segment volumes and not individual
turning movement volumes, this can result in unbalanced volumes when comparing intersections
immediately to the project with those intersections not immediately adjacent to the project. Although
these discrepancies can occur when comparing adjacent intersections’ turning movement volumes,
the total project added volumes at the intersections not immediately adjacent to the proposed project
are accurate based on the use of the KernCOG model results. These total project added volumes at
individual intersections are adequate when determining the overall impact at the intersections at
future year scenarios for calculation of the project’s share of vehicles utilizing those future year
scenarios.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Response to Comment CALTRANS-2-2
In addition to paying into the traffic fee program, as identified in the TIS, analysis was performed
based on future cumulative traffic volumes at Year 2015 to identify required improvements at an
assumed Opening Day scenario. It is the policy of the City of Bakersfield that all development
projects must construct collector and arterial frontages of their respective projects to full half width
improvements. Consistent with this policy, the West Ming Specific Plan’s various projects will be
required to construct their frontage improvements as they develop regardless of whether or not these
improvements are beyond minimum mitigation measures that are identified in the TIS. In addition to
the half width improvements required for the frontage roadways, all collector and arterial roadways
within the project will be required to be constructed by the development to full width standards
regardless of whether or not those full width improvements are required to accommodate future
project and non-project traffic. Improvements are required for adjacent intersections, including
signalization, will also be constructed by the various portions of the project as they develop.
Response to Comment CALTRANS-2-3
The KernCOG traffic model volumes indicate that State Route 99/Ming Avenue interchange meet the
criteria identified in the traffic impact study for detailed analysis. The following information is
provided regarding the With Project and Without Project volumes. For the intersection of Ming
Avenue at State Route 99 Northbound Ramps/Valley Plaza Entrance, the traffic model indicates a
total of 48,700 vehicles AADT for the Without Project scenario and 48,900 vehicles for the With
Project scenario. This equates to only a 20 vehicle increase at PM Peak attributable to the project.
Approximating volumes from the model for the southbound ramps results in the project attributing 30
vehicle increase for the off ramp and a 30 vehicle increase for the on ramp at the PM peak hour.
These PM peak hour traffic volumes are not considered substantial and are expected to result in a less
than significant impact on the operation of the northbound and southbound ramps.
CDC-1
CDC
PAGE1OF2
CDC
PAGE2OF2
CDC-1
CONT.
CDC-2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
State of California, Department of Conservation - October 16, 2006 (CDC)
Response to Comment CDC-1
This comment regarding the feasibility of purchasing agricultural conservation easements to reduce
the potential significant impact of the loss of agricultural land from project implementation is noted.
Based on a discussion with the Central Valley Farmland Trust, there are no entities in Kern County to
implement or manage agricultural land conservation easements. A governmental entity or land trust
is needed to assume responsibility for holding and managing agricultural conservation easements to
prohibit practices which would interfere with agricultural use of lands covered by easements. As a
result, the purchasing of agricultural conservation easements to reduce significant impacts from the
loss of agricultural land is not considered feasible at this time.
Although agricultural conservation easements are not considered feasible, the following mitigation
measure is added to reduce project impacts due to the conversion of agricultural land. With the
implementation of the mitigation measure below, the project’s impact on agricultural land is reduced
to the maximum extent feasible and will be substantially lessen; however, the level of impact due to
the conversion of agricultural land would still be considered significant and unavoidable.
The following mitigation is added to pages 5.1-12 and 6-2 under Mitigation Measures in the Draft
EIR as well as pages 2-3 and 2-30 under the Mitigation Measures column for Impact 5.1.A and
Impact 6.3.1.A in the Draft EIR:
5.1.A.1 Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map for urban development, or approval of
a Site Plan Review by the City of Bakersfield, whichever occurs first, the applicant
shall mitigate loss of 2,182 acres of agricultural lands by selecting one or more of the
items described below. Agricultural land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide importance established by the State Department of
Conservation. In addition, as indicated at the same time described above, the
applicant shall submit written verification of the applicant’s compliance of this
mitigation to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.
Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s
approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying
agricultural land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced,
Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, Kern) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written
evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.
• Funding and purchase of agricultural conservation easements. Such easements
shall be managed and maintained by an appropriate entity.
• Purchase of credits from an established agricultural farmland mitigation bank.
• Contribution of agricultural land or equivalent funding to an organization that
provides for the preservation of farmland in California.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
• During the life of the project, if the City of Bakersfield or other responsible
agency adopts an agricultural land mitigation program that provides equal or more
effective mitigation than measures listed above, the applicant may choose to
participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of agricultural land impacts.
Prior to participation in the alternate program, the applicant shall obtain written
approval from the City of Bakersfield agreeing to the participation, and the
applicant shall submit written verification of compliance with the alternate
program at the same time described above in the first paragraph.
The mitigation provided above shall be completed as lands within the project are
developed such that mitigation will occur at least contemporaneously with the
development of such lands.
Response to Comment CDC-2
As identified on page 3-28 in the Draft EIR, the project will be developed in phases over an
approximate 20-year period. Grading within the Specific Plan area would occur as development is
proposed and implemented. Therefore, the existing agricultural activities will continue and be located
adjacent to new developed areas of the Specific Plan until each area of the project site is developed.
This will allow the continuance of the existing agricultural activities until there is a demand for the
proposed project land uses.
SJVAPCD-1
SJVAPCD-2
SJVAPCD
PAGE1OF2
SJVAPCD-3
SJVAPCD-4
SJVAPCD-4
CONT.
SJVAPCD
PAGE2OF2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
4.4 - Regional Agencies
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - October 17, 2006 (SJVAPCD)
Response to Comment SJVAPCD-1
With respect to separating out the annual emissions from each land use category listed in Table 5.2-1,
the approach utilized in the air study of individual URBEMIS model runs for each year of
construction and operation using the current templates was prepared based on SJVUAPCD
discussions and guidance. As stated in the approved protocol, the analysis was performed in
accordance with Guide to Assessing Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), where the sum of all project-
related area and indirect source emissions were compared to ROG and NOx significance thresholds.
The individual URBEMIS runs that show the separation by land use are provided as an appendix to
Appendix C of the EIR.
Response to Comment SJVAPCD-2
The comment is noted. There is a discrepancy between Table 5.2-5 of the Air Quality Assessment
and Table 1 of Appendix VI of Appendix C of the EIR. The data in Appendix VI of Appendix C of
the EIR reflect higher agricultural related emissions that the numbers provided in the Air Quality
Assessment text (and utilized in the total emissions tables). Table 5.2-5 of the EIR is correct.
Response to Comment SJVAPCD-3
As noted in Response to Comment SJVAPCD-1 and as in the approved protocol, the Air Quality
Assessment was performed in accordance with SJVAPCD GAMAQI. GAMAQI states that project
operations should be evaluated for area source, indirect source, and stationary sources impacts at the
time at which construction is complete and the project is occupied with its intended use. For the West
Ming Specific Plan project, it is estimated that the site will be occupied with its intended use at 2027.
The Air Quality Assessment provides emission totals from the entire intermediate period (from start
of construction until buildout) in Appendix C. Emission totals at buildout (and for each year
throughout buildout) exceed District significance thresholds of 10 tons per year of reactive organic
gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which is the purpose of the additional mitigation
measures that are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant. The area source, stationary
source, indirect source, and the construction phase emissions were summed annually to determine the
maximum impact year for which complete (ROG), (NOx), and PM10 mitigation is proposed to
reduce these emissions to zero.
Response to Comment SJVAPCD-4
The applicant has entered into an agreement with SJVAPCD and has funded the agreement to allow
the mitigation to be realized this year.
RMA-1
PAGE1OF1
RMA-1-1
RMA-1-2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
4.5 - County Agencies
Kern County Roads Department, Resource Management Agency - September 21, 2006
(RMA-1)
Response to Comment RMA-1-1
The version of the Traffic Report in Appendix L is a previous version of the report, and there were
modifications that were made in an updated Traffic Report. This updated Traffic Report is provided
in Attachment 1 in this Response to Comments document. The modifications that were provided in
the updated Traffic Report included (1) revised fee summaries on Page 36 and Tables 6 and 10 of the
Traffic Report, (2) the appendices to the Traffic Report, and (3) clarifications of when improvements
are required. The modifications and clarifications are specified in Section 5, Errata, of this Response
to Comments and do not substantially alter the conclusions that are presented in the Traffic Impact
Study.
Response to Comment RMA-1-2
The revised Traffic Report was sent to the County Roads Department for review on September 26,
2006 and is currently available for public review at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department at
1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. As stated in Response to Comment RMA-1-1 and in
Section 5, Errata, the modifications and clarifications that were included in the revised Traffic Report
did not substantially alter the conclusions that were presented in the Traffic Report in Appendix L of
the Draft EIR.
RMA-2
PAGE1OF2
RMA-2-1
RMA-2-2
RMA-2-3
RMA-2-4
RMA-2-5
RMA-2-6
RMA-2
PAGE2OF2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Kern County Roads Department, Resource Management Agency - October 9, 2006
(RMA 2)
Response to Comment RMA-2-1
The Traffic Impact Study does not assume full buildout will occur of Westside Parkway and West
Beltway by the year 2015. These facilities are indicated on KernCOG’s cumulative model year run
for the year 2030, which was utilized to analyze the project impact at full buildout of the project. An
additional analysis year scenario was performed for the year 2015 to identify required improvements
at year 2015. With respect to these facilities, this additional analysis scenario merely identifies the
minimum improvements that would be required at their interchanges with existing roadways at the
time of the construction of the interchanges.
Response to Comment RMA-2-2
In accordance with the City of Bakersfield’s ordinance regarding the Regional Traffic Impact Fee
(RTIF) program, the project’s share of the RTIF shall be the fixed rate unless the project produces
trips equivalent to or greater than that of what is considered a Major Retail Project, as defined in the
current Methodology for Independent Assessment of Regional Impacts. Per City ordinance, the
project share for the West Ming Specific Plan project is to be calculated in accordance with the
current methodology for fee calculation of a Major Retail Project. The required fee calculation is
provided in Table 10 of the revised Traffic Impact Study and included in the revised Appendix L and
attached to this Response to Comments document.
In addition to the fee calculation which is based on the KernCOG 2020 model as required, impact
analysis is performed at year 2030. If the improvements identified in the RTIF are not sufficient to
mitigate project impacts at year 2030, than additional mitigation measures are identified. Those
additional mitigation measures along with the project’s pro rata share of the cost of those additional
measures are identified in Table 6 of the revised Appendix L attached to this Response to Comments
document. The total impact fees of page 36 of the TIS are combination of both the calculated
regional fee and the project’s pro rata share of the costs to provide the additional improvements
required to mitigate both the project and the cumulative project impacts at year 2030.
Response to Comment RMA-2-3
The comment is noted in regard to the Institute of Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation’s Manual Fitted
Curve Equation and the Average Rate; however, this should have no significant affect on the results
presented in the TIS. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, A Recommended Practice, recommends to
choose between the regression equation (fitted curve) or the weighted average rate based on which
plot line tests fits the data points at the size of the independent variable for this project. This choice is
to be made when other criteria for choosing one method over the other method does not result in a
clear preference. Upon inspection of the data plots for ITE Code 210, the data points at the size of the
independent variable for the various groups of residential products within the project are scattered on
both side of both plot line plots representing the fitted curve and the average rate. Since this
dispersion of the representative data points also does not result in a clear preference, the proposed trip
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
generation for the project was approximated taking the average of the traffic volumes calculated by
the two different methods. This methodology is also consistent with the remaining ITE codes used in
the TIS analysis.
Response to Comment RMA-2-4
The comment is noted regarding the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios; however, this should have no
significant affect on the results presented in the TIS. The mitigation measures identified for project
impacts at year 2030 do not include any two lane undivided roadways. Therefore, the V/C ratio
calculations used to determine the resulting levels of service (LOS) after the proposed mitigation
required to reduce the project’s impacts to less than significant are consistent with the comment. It
should also be noted that although there are two lane roadways identified in Table 9 of the TIS for
non-project impacts; the City of Bakersfield’s policy that all development projects construct collector
and arterial frontages of the respective project to full half-width improvements. Therefore, all other
projects contributing to the cumulative future impacts will be required to build their respective
frontages as they develop, which will contribute to the mitigation of the cumulative impacts.
Consistent with the City’s policy, the West Ming Specific Plan project will be required to construct
the frontage roadways; collector and arterial roadways within the project will be required to be
constructed by the development to a full width standards regardless of whether or not those full width
improvements are required to accommodate future project and non-project traffic. It should also be
noted that the majority of arterials in the vicinity are included in the RTIF program to provide for two
additional lanes. Because of these factors and policies, it is unlikely that any two land roadway will
remain beyond its requirement for expansion.
Response to Comment RMA-2-5
The comment is noted. The TIS scope for facilities requiring LOS impact analysis was developed in
accordance with City policy. The comment incorrectly implies that the calculation of the RTIF was
prepared for only facilities that serve 50 or more project trips. Please refer to Table 10 of the revised
TIS (Appendix L as attached to this Response to Comments document) in which the Regional Impact
Fees are calculated for all facilities currently included in the current RTIF list regardless of the
magnitude of trips.
This has to be accomplished in order to ensure that the project pays its pro rata share into the RTIF
program. Detailed analysis is identified for facilities in accordance with the thresholds identified in
the TIS and EIR so as to identify any additional mitigation required above and beyond that included
in the RTIF program due to project impacts. The minimum thresholds that were identified are those
that would be required to actually affect the analysis at those particular service levels. Additionally,
the fee calculations provided in the RTIF were calculated in accordance with the City’s ordinance.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Response to Comment RMA-2-6
Please refer to Response to Comments RMA-2-2 and RMA-2-5 regarding the project’s fee
contribution to the RTIF program.
KCWA
PAGE1OF4
KCWA-1
KCWA-2
KCWA
PAGE2OF4
KCWA-2
CONT.
KCWA-3
KCWA-4
KCWA-5
KCWA-6
KCWA-7
KCWA-8
KCWA
PAGE3OF4
KCWA-8
CONT.
KCWA-9
KCWA-10
KCWA-11
KCWA
PAGE4OF4
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Kern County Water Agency - October 16, 2006 (KCWA)
Response to Comment KCWA-1
The comment is noted that the applicant, Castle &Cooke, has entered into an agreement (dated June
7, 2006) with the Kern County Water Agency to exchange land from south of the Kern River for land
north of the Kern River, which will assist in buffering open space areas, groundwater recharge, and
water production.
Response to Comment KCWA-2
The comment is noted that the comments provided in the letter submitted by the Kern County Water
Agency on the West Ming Specific Plan Draft EIR are based upon their understanding of the City’s
water balance.
Response to Comment KCWA-3
This comment regarding the City of Bakersfield’s estimated annual water consumption is noted, and
the first sentence on page 3 of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in Appendix M of the Draft EIR
is revised as follows:
Without specific information as to the different service entities, a mass water balance within
the City of Bakersfield area consists of the following: population 295,893 (KernCOG);
assuming 325 gallons per capita per day, an estimated annual water consumption of 107, 700
acre-feet per year (afy); average annual surface water supplies that are treated and directly
delivered to municipal users total approximately 30,000 afy with the remaining 77,700 afy
being supplies by groundwater pumping.
Response to Comment KCWA-4
The comment regarding ID4 water supply from the State Water Project is noted. Section VI (B) on
page 11 is revised as follows:
Kern River is not the only surface water source available to the City of Bakersfield; water is
also obtained from the Improvement District (ID) #4. ID #4 was formed by resolution
adopted by the Board of Directors of the KCWA on December 21, 1971 to provide
supplemental water supply for portions of the Bakersfield metropolitan area through
implementation of water from the State Water Project (SWP). Approximately 65 percent of
the district is within the limits of the City of Bakersfield. The City service area covers about
20 percent to 30 percent of ID #4. Waters made available to the City of Bakersfield from ID
#4 are only permitted for use within the actual boundaries of the District. Currently, ID #4
has an annual entitlement of 93,546 acre feet. Actual allocations from the SWP in any year
are subject to hydrologic variability of the State Project.
Response to Comment KCWA-5
This comment regarding the use of Kern River water supply is noted. The first paragraph in Section
VI (A) is revised as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Unlike groundwater supplies, river flows have a high degree of variability. In order to
account for the hydrologic variability of the Kern River, statistical analysis of flow data
typically includes probability of occurrence graph along with a bar chart based on annual
volume. Historic Kern River flow data was obtained from the California Department of
Water Resource (DWR) Division of Flood Management Data Exchange Center website and
the Kern County Watermaster. The flow measuring point of DWR is downstream of Lake
Isabella and the site ID for this location is KRB. The Kern River Watermaster records flow
diversions at a site known as the First Point of Measurement, rebuilt in 1981.
Response to Comment KCWA-6
TH following footnote is added to Table 5 of the Water Supply Assessment:
4. If Kern River supplies are reduced by 70,000 af, the total amount of surplus water supply
decreases to 31,000 af.
Response to Comment KCWA-7
To clarify the information in the WSA, when excess Kern River water is available of use by the City
of Bakersfield, this source may be redirected to the 2,800 acres located along the banks of the Kern
River where the water is allowed to percolate back into the ground through old river channels and
spreading basin. The City’s current operational philosophy for the area is expected to continue into
the future and will be modified as needed so that the City can continue to provide reliable water to its
users.
Response to Comment KCWA-8
To clarify the information in the WSA, the Kern River water supply (140,000 af) identified on page 5
of the WSA is intended to show how this source could be used to meet future demands of the City.
The City recognizes that recharge operations at the Kern River Channel and the 2,800 acres are
governed by infiltration rates and contractual recharge agreements with other agencies. Since this
volume of water is less than the maximum recharge capability of the Kern River Channel and the
2,800 acres, it is conceivable that this entire entitlement could be used to replenish the groundwater
bank if storage space is available
Response to Comment KCWA-9
This comment regarding recharge and recovery operations for the 2,800-Acres is noted. The
following is added after the second paragraph in Section V (C) of the WSA in Appendix M.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
2800 Acres Recharge Facility Operations
Calendar Year Spreading (AF) Losses (AF) Recovery (AF) Groundwater
Storage (AF)
1999 0 0 6,741 205,632
2000 0 0 3,426 202,206
2001 64 0 9,227 193,043
2002 156 0 14,084 179,115
2003 89 0 8,416 170,788
2004 144 0 14,092 156,840
2005 32,573 1,953 2,860 184,600
Notes:
1. Source: 2005 City of Bakersfield Urban Water Management Plan
2. Spreading and loss data sets area current through 7/31/2006 with recovery data current through 6/30/2006.
Response to Comment KCWA-10
To clarify the information in the WSA, the reclaimed water volume specified on page 9 of the WSA
documents the amount of water that is typically generated from this source on average and does not
imply that the City is dependent on complete utilization of this resource. In all water balance
investigations included within the WSA, reclaimed water utilization is limited to 50 percent of the
total wastewater generation, which is less than the current reclaimed water utilization. Use of this
resource to meet irrigation needs of cropped farmland is consistent with the City’s existing disposal
practice for this water source and does not qualify as double counting because the groundwater wells
that are typically used for irrigating are turned off.
Response to Comment KCWA-11
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(1)(B), the WSA evaluated the cumulative
impacts utilizing a summary of growth projections contained in the KernCOG regional growth
forecast adopted in April 2002. These adopted KernCOG projections described and evaluated
regional and area-wide conditions contributing to cumulative impacts. The population projections
account for all estimated growth that is to occur within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, irrespective
of where within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that this growth is to occur. As stated on page 33
of the WSA, the growth projections utilized and incorporated all existing, planned, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area including but not limited to the
specific projects identified on the list attached as Appendix D of Appendix M of the Draft EIR. Thus,
the growth projections included growth from all projects referenced in the KCWA letter.
KCSS
PAGE1OF2
KCSS-1
KCSS
PAGE2OF2
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-51
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Kern County Superintendent of Schools - October 11, 2006 (KCSS)
Response to Comment KCSS-1
This comment regarding the provision of child care is noted. According to the West Ming Specific
Plan, there are specific uses allowed within the proposed zoning designations on the project site. Day
care facilities are a permitted use in a few of the proposed zones on the project site. The specific uses
that will be constructed in the proposed zones on the project site is not known at this time.
CRM-1
PAGE1OF6
CRM-1-1
CRM-1-1
CONT.
CRM-1
PAGE2OF6
CRM-1-1
CONT.
CRM-1
PAGE3OF6
CRM-1-1
CONT.
CRM-1
PAGE4OF6
CRM-1
PAGE5OF6
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-59
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
4.6 - Private Organizations and Persons
Crimson Resource Management - October 5, 2006 (CRM-1)
Response to Comment CRM-1-1
An updated Natural Resources Report was prepared by WZI, Inc. on October 26, 2006, and is
included in Attachment 2 of this Response to Comments document. As part of the updated report,
WZI, Inc., reviewed the report prepared by Ryder Scott Company, which was submitted by CRM.
WZI concurs that in light of current conditions the valuation conclusions included in the Ryder Scott
Company report are reasonable and as of January 1, 2006 the value of well 52X-10 is $1,685,000.
To ensure that the proposed project does not impact the known resources in the area of Crimson 52X-
10 well, the project applicant is proposing to revise the Zoning Districts map (Exhibit 3-4) in the
Draft EIR by including a 2.5-acre (330 feet by 330 feet) in the northwestern portion of the project site
to West Ming Drill Island District (WM - DI) zone from the proposed West Ming One Family
Dwelling Zone (WM-R1). The WM-DI zone is proposed to have a westernmost boundary located
115 feet, a northernmost boundary located 165 feet, a southernmost boundary located 165 feet, and an
easternmost boundary located 215 feet from the center of Crimson 52X-10 well. To reflect this
change in the proposed project, the following is added on page 3-12 in the Draft EIR above Table 3-3.
West Ming-Drill Island (WM-DI). This zone allows for oil or gas exploration and development,
production, storage, transmission, and treatment, and any accessory or ancillary equipment structure
or facilities thereto,
In addition, Table 3-3 on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR is revised so that WM-R1 is 445.5 acres and
WM-DI is added as 2.5 acres. Furthermore, Exhibit 3-4 in the Draft EIR is hereby revised to reflect
the proposed WM-DI zone.
According to the project applicant, CRM and Castle & Cooke have entered into an agreement in relation
to the continuing operation of well 52X-10.
The terms of the agreement in principle are as follows:
• Castle & Cooke will provide CRM with an exclusive easement over a 2.5 acre site (330 feet x
330 feet) and Castle & Cooke have the right to reconfigure the 2.5 acre site as development
occurs within the area of well 52X-10 as long as CRM’s operations are not adversely affected;
• Castle & Cooke will provide CRM with permanent access to the site;
• Castle & Cooke has the right to relocate roadways to the site as the area around well 52X-10
develops;
• Castle & Cooke will apply to rezone the 2.5 acre site as DI, Drilling Island;
• The easement will terminate upon abandonment and plugging of the well;
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-60 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
• CRM will provide a surface waiver over the balance of the 20 acre site;
• Where feasible, Castle & Cooke have the right to relocate pipelines which fall outside of the
2.5 acre site. Where feasible, pipelines will be re-routed into the public right-of-way;
• Castle & Cooke will stub utilities to the site when utilities become available; and
• Castle & Cooke will construct a masonry wall around the 2.5-acre site as the area is developed.
The addition of the WM-DI zone will not result in new environmental impacts that we not previously
discussed in the Draft EIR. The potential effects on mineral resources and a mitigation measure were
previously provided on page 1-6 in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measure will reduce potential
impacts on Crimson 52X-10 well from future land uses developed in the adjoining WM-R1 zone.
FH
PAGE1OF3
FH-1
FH-2
FH
PAGE2OF3
FH-2
CONT.
FH-3
FH-4
FH
PAGE3OF3
FH-4
CONT.
FH-5
FH-6
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-65
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Foothill Energy - October 16, 2006 (FH)
Response to Comment FH-1
The comment is noted that in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, it was determined
that with the implementation of the proposed project impacts to mineral resources would be less than
significant with mitigation. As the commentor notes, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department
determined that there is the potential for mineral resources; specifically the East Gosford Area of the
Canfield Ranch Oil Field could be impacted by project implementation. The proposed project does
include a Special Use District that would all continued oil well production either by right or by a
conditional use permit, depending on the distance of the facilities to project related structures.
Response to Comment FH-2
The comment is noted that the proposed project includes Mitigation Measure MR-1, which reduces
impacts to mineral resources to less than significant.
Response to Comment FH-3
Please see Response to Comments CRM1-1 regarding the update to the Natural Resources Report
prepared by WZI, Inc. According to the revised Natural Resources Report located as revised
Appendix H in this Response to Comments document, Foothill Energy LLC’s well may have
remaining productive lives of between 6 and 35 years. According to WZI, the proposed project
would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources nor in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral resource recovery site with the implementation of a petroleum integration
plan as referenced in a mitigation measure on page 1-6 of the Draft EIR. The petroleum integration
plan is anticipated to include (1) reservation of presently existing well sites, (2) provision for future
drill sites on development maps, (3) provide for continued access and drilling rights to the sites, and
(4) design the subdivisions in such a manner to ensure regulatory compliance with local, regional, and
state setback and siting requirements regarding development of oil and gas producing property.
Response to Comment FH-4
The comment is noted that through the EIR process it was determined that there is the potential for
hazards and hazardous materials impacts to occur in relation to the transportation, use, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials associated with the oil field activities. As the commentor notes,
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project to reduce these potential
impacts to less than significant (see Mitigation Measures 5.6.G.1 through 5.6.G.7 of Section 5.6,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the EIR) IT is noted that Foothill Energy complies with all
federal, state, and local laws and that as an operator of the Canfield Ranch Oil Field facility since
2004, Foothill Energy has not had a spill or related environmental incident. It is noted that Foothill
Energy fully supports the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR except for 5.6.G.1 because this
measure should not refer to idle wells because an operator could leave a well idle and re-enter in the
future. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 5.6.G.1 is revised as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-66 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
5.6.G.1 Prior to recordation of a final map, any abandoned 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.
Response to Comment FH-5
The comment is noted that Foothill Energy is currently evaluating the idle wells on the project site
and that any wells that are to be abandoned will be abandoned in accordance with the standards set
forth by the Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the wells that
continue to operate on the site will be subject to DOGGR’s program for monitoring and managing
idle wells.
TT
PAGE1OF2
TT-1
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-69
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Tejon Indian Tribe - September 27, 2006 (TT)
Response to Comment TT-1
The comment is noted that the Tejon Indian Tribe would like to be on the project site during any
future archeological survey and any surface disturbance. In accordance with Mitigation Measure
5.4.A.1, a Native American monitor will be onsite during construction activities at the location of the
10 cultural sites and 26 isolates that were previously recorded on the site.
SC-1
PAGE1OF4
SC-1-1
SC-1-2
SC-1
PAGE2OF4
SC-1-2
CONT.
SC-1-3
SC-1-4
SC-1-5
SC-1
PAGE3OF4
SC-1-5
CONT.
SC-1-6
SC-1-7
SC-1-8
SC-1-9
SC-1
PAGE4OF4
SC-1-10
SC-1-11
SC-1-12
SC-1-13
SC-1-14
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-75
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Sierra Club - October 5, 2006 (SC-1)
Response to Comment SC-1-1
The potential to mitigate project-related agricultural resources impacts by identifying a government
entity or land trust to manage a conservation easement (i.e., designed to prohibit practices that would
interfere with agricultural activities) was considered. However, this mitigation was rejected as it was
deemed not feasible. Specifically, to date, no government entity or private land trust has created any
program in Kern County to implement the acquisition or management of conservation easements or
any other vehicle by which mitigation of farmland impacts can be achieved. Without such a program,
such mitigation is not feasible. Please see response to comment CDC-1 regarding conservation
easements for agricultural land and a mitigation measure that has been included to reduce impacts on
agricultural land to the maximum extent feasible and substantially lessen the impact. However, the
impact due to the conversion of agricultural land would still be considered significant and
unavoidable.
Response to Comment SC-1-2
The proposed project includes the establishment of land uses within a Specific Plan. The detailed
design of the proposed structures as well as the lighting associated with the structures has not been
prepared because the project applicant is not requesting approval of site-specific development plans.
The site-specific development plans will be part of future requested approvals.
Lighting is discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) prepared for the West Ming
Specific Plan (Appendix A of the Draft EIR). As discussed in the IS/NOP, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the mandatory obligations relating to lighting and glare contained
in the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the Municipal Code is expected to result in less than
significant light and glare impacts.
Response to Comment SC-1-3
The primary lighting sources associated with the proposed project will be from the proposed
commercial and industrial uses that are located in the vicinity of South Allen Road and Buena Vista
Road. Habitat in the vicinity of the West Ming Specific Plan is located north of Ming Avenue, west
of the project site and west of West Beltway, and south of the Union Pacific Railroad. Ming Avenue
will have a lighting system that provides adequate night lighting in accordance with the City of
Bakersfield Municipal Code for vehicles. The proposed onsite uses adjacent to Ming Avenue will be
low density residential, and these uses are not associated with substantial amount of lighting.
Furthermore, a levee is proposed along the northern side of the future alignment of Ming Avenue to
eliminate potential flooding on the project site from a 100-year frequency flood. The proposed levee
will also provide an additional buffer between the project site and habitat north of the project site.
The portion of the project site along the eastern boundary of the project site is planned for low-
medium density residential and low density residential. Lighting systems associated with these uses
will be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and would not cause significant lighting
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-76 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
impacts west of the project site. The area south of the project site is currently in agriculture and
planned to be developed with a master planned community. The proposed onsite uses which include
low-medium residential, high-medium residential, special use district, and office-commercial are
separated from the area south of the project site by the existing Union Pacific Railroad as well as the
future extension of Pacheco Road. The areas east of the project site are currently developing or have
been developed with residential uses; therefore, the project would not affect habitat in these areas.
Since the project site is proposed to be separated from nearby habitat by existing and planned barriers
such as roadways, levees, and railroads, the implementation of the proposed project would result in
less than significant lighting impacts on habitat in the vicinity of the project site.
Response to Comment SC-1-4
This comment regarding the documentation of measures to reduce air emissions is noted.
As discussed on page 5.2-36, the project applicant has entered into an Air Quality Mitigation
Agreement with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) to participate in a
voluntary emission reduction program (see Mitigation Measure 5.2.C.2 and Appendix C of the Draft
EIR). The applicant’s compliance with the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will result in a
reduction of ROG, NOx, and PM10 net emissions to net zero or in quantities to 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 which would otherwise exist without the development
of the project, as verified by the SJVAPCD. Additionally, as noted on page 5.2-37 of the Draft EIR,
the program provides for implementation of all feasible mitigation measures through smart growth
design of the development. This could include the installation of turnouts and park and ride facilities
if it is considered feasible and if Golden Empire Transit will service the project site. The agreement
includes emission reduction design features such as:
• Utilization of land use designs, which create walkable communities and encourage pedestrian
travel;
• Utilization of interconnecting sidewalks, walking paths, and/or bike paths in order to encourage
travel by other means other than motor vehicle;
• Utilization of appropriate landscaping to create reasonable shade canopies for streets,
parkways, and parking areas;
• Utilization of roadway designs, which enhance pedestrian safety by appropriate signaling,
signage, and separation from traffic;
• Design requirements, which incorporate natural gas hookups and electrical outlets on patios;
and
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-77
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
• Design requirements, which prohibit the installation and use of wood burning stoves and wood
burning fireplaces.
Response to Comment SC-1-5
As provided in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR, implementation of mitigation measure 5.2.C.2 will
reduce ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions to net zero. Annual construction phase, area source, indirect
source, and existing agricultural emissions were summed form the project commencement to buildout
to determine the year of maximum project emissions for the purpose of mitigation. Year 2026
represents the year in which maximum project-related emissions occur.
Real, quantifiable, and verifiable mitigation at 2026 levels (inclusive of construction phase emissions)
will be in place prior to the commencement of construction.
Response to Comment SC-1-6
The proposed project will result in significant unavoidable impacts to three roadway segments and the
project will cumulatively contribute to significant unavoidable impacts to two additional roadway
segments (as reflected in Section 5, Errata, of this Response to Comments document). As outlined in
Mitigation Measure 5.11.A.1 and Mitigation Measure 6.3.11.A.1, the project applicant will be
required to participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program and pay a
proportional share for local mitigation improvements (those not covered by the RTIF). As discussed
in Sections 5.11 and 6.3.11 of the Draft EIR, no additional measures to reduce potential impacts to
less than significant along the roadway segments is feasible.
A Transit-oriented Alternative is suggested by the commentor to reduce potential project and
cumulative traffic congestion impacts. The transit that is suggested includes an area-wide light rail
system. Currently, the public transportation that involves rail in the City of Bakersfield includes the
Union Pacific and Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad line that accommodates Amtrak service
among cities within the Central Valley. No Metropolitan Bakersfield-wide light-rail system is
provided, and the provision of a system for the proposed project is not feasible for the project
applicant to implement. Furthermore, the west side of Bakersfield has been planned to include a
substantial amount of low density residential which is not conducive for the implementation of a
light-rail system because such a system accommodates areas with high densities. However, if the
City and/or the County determines that a light-rail system is feasible to implement in the future, the
project applicant has included a Special Use District in the Specific Plan that allows a future light-rail
station adjacent to the existing railroad tracks on the southern boundary of the project site. The
potential future light-rail location is illustrated on Exhibit 3-6 in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment SC-I-7
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) “Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended
Practice” recommends to choose between use of the regression equation (fitted curve) or the weighted
average rate based on which line plot best fits the data points at the size of the independent variable
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-78 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
for the project. This choice is to be made when other criteria used for choosing one method over the
other does not result in a clear preference. Upon inspection of the data plots for ITE Code 210, the
data points at the size of the independent variable for the various groups of residential products within
the project are scattered on both sides of both line plots representing the fitted curve and the average
rate. Since this dispersion of the respective data points also does not result in a clear preference, the
proposed trip generation for the project was approximated by taking the average of the traffic
volumes calculated by the two different methods.
The Trip Generation Handbook states, “When the Trip Generation data plot contains more than 20
data points and a regression curve and equation are provided, use of the regression equation is
recommended. A regression equation with an R2 of at least 0.75 is preferred because it indicates the
desired level of correlation between the trips generated by a site and the value measured for an
independent variable.” For this ITE code (i.e. ITE code 210), there are approximately 350 data
points, and the value of R2 is 0.96. Use of the fitted curve equation alone for calculating the Average
Vehicle Trip Ends for the Single Family Residential land use, as recommended by the above excerpt,
would result in a reduction to the trip generation volume of approximately 3,700 vehicle trip ends
from the volume used in the study. This would result in a reduction of approximately 9 percent from
the volumes used in the Traffic Report.
The review comment questions the use of the fitted curve equation because the statistics on which it is
based do not cover a project of this size.” However, both the Average Rate of 9.57 Trip Ends per
Dwelling Unit and the fitted curve equation are based on the same statistics. It is not necessarily
appropriate to use a method that may calculate a higher rate just because it results in a higher traffic
volume. In fact for larger projects (greater than 500+/- units), the graph of the data points for this
land use actually shows that the fitted curve line better represents the data points than does the
average rate line.
Additionally it should be noted that the Traffic Report did not apply a reduction to any of the trip
generation volumes to account for internal capture rates within the project vicinity. From the Trip
Generation Handbook “An internal capture rate can generally be defined as a percentage reduction
that can be applied to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal
to the site.” Use of this reduction is appropriate for this type of multi-use development. Further as
stated in the Trip Generation Handbook,”...a multi-use development is typically a single real-estate
project that consists of two or more ITE land use classifications between which trips can be made
without using the off-site road system. Because of the nature of these land uses, the trip-making
characteristics are interrelated, and some trips are made among the on-site uses. This capture of trips
internal to the site has the net effect of reducing vehicle trip generation between the overall
development site and the external street system (compared to the total number of trips generated by
comparable, stand-alone sites)”. These overall capture rates can be significant. Since the Traffic
Report did not utilize these reductions, the actual rates used are even more conservative.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-79
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
The trip generation rates used from the “Institute of Transportation Engineers - Trip Generation
Manual” are based on studies of single-family detached housing only and do not include any
reductions for proximity to commercial properties. An excerpt from the description contained in the
ITE manual for this land use further details the basis of the trip generation in the Traffic Report.
“Single-family detached units had the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential
uses, because they were the largest units in size and had more residents and more vehicles per unit
than other residential land uses; they were generally located farther away from shopping centers,
employment areas and other trip attractors than other residential land uses; and they generally had
fewer alternate modes of transportation available, because they were typically not as concentrated as
other residential land uses.”
There is also no validation that these rates should be adjusted due to “very high summer
temperatures” as the review comment claims. The ITE manual’s rate is based on 350 different studies
performed throughout the United States and Canada. There are no suggested adjustments due to
climate, whether they be hot summer temperatures in California or sub-zero temperatures in the
northern states or Canada.
As further supported by the information provided above, the trip generation average rate and fitted
curve equation contained in the ITE manual for this land use, and utilized in the Traffic Report are
appropriate.
Furthermore, use of the KernCOG model is required by the local agencies for predicting future traffic
volumes. This model is maintained by KernCOG using current projections of socio-economic data
for the entire Metropolitan Bakersfield Sphere of Influence. Both data input and model results are
reviewed and approved by the city and county. The cumulative projects model run prepared by
KernCOG is mandated to be used by development projects requiring Traffic Impact Studies to help
ensure consistent results between the studies with respect to future traffic projections. The KernCOG
model prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program is used
by all the projects as well to help ensure that all proposed projects pay their fair share of
transportation impact fees.
Response to Comment SC-1-8
A housing needs analysis for the proposed project has been prepared to determine the need for the
proposed 7,450 housing units in Metropolitan Bakersfield. In addition, the analysis evaluates the
cumulative need of other housing projects and proposed project.
The Housing Needs Analysis is summarized in Section 5, Errata, of this Response to Comments
document and is located in its entirety in Attachment 6. The findings of this analysis are that the
housing demand within Metropolitan Bakersfield based on officially adopted forecasts from Kern
COG through 2030 and The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. 2040 projection based on countywide
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-80 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
population growth rates forecasted by the California State Department of Finance show an over
supply of 733 housing units in 2030 based on the number of housing units proposed within
cumulative projects. This projected over supply represents approximately 0.7 percent of the growth,
which is considered not significant. The 2040 housing demand projections show a substantial under
supply (unmet demand) of 13,001 housing units, which represents 9.7 percent of the growth.
Response to Comment SC-1-9
Electrical services to the proposed project will be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E).
Based on a discussion with Matt Coleman, PG&E’s land technician, PG&E has an adequate supply of
electricity for the West Ming Specific Plan subdivision(s) on Buena Vista Road. PG&E will utilize
proposed and existing road easements when installing electrical facilities for the project. Since the
Specific Plan site is in the vicinity of PG&E’s existing substation, no new substations is expected to
be required. In addition, no new power plants are proposed as PG&E has included this area in long-
term plans for development.
Response to Comment SC-1-10
The EIR was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and examined air quality impacts in
relation to the thresholds established by the City of Bakersfield and those presented in Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, please see Response to Comment SC-1-4.
In addition, the project applicant, Castle & Cooke, currently builds all of its homes to meet the
Comfortwise/Green standards. Specifically, this means that Castle & Cooke builds homes that are
twenty percent more energy-efficient than the current California Title 24 mandatory requirements (as
of October 2005) and utilize green building practices. The commentor identified the need for the
proposed project to include solar photovoltaic panels for water heating. The use of these panels
would reduce the amount of electricity used as well as reduce the amount of air emissions generated
from the use of electricity. Please see response to comment SC-1-4 regarding the proposed mitigation
measure to reduce air emissions to net zero. Please also see response to comment SC-1-9 regarding
the availability of electricity in the project vicinity.
Response to Comment SC-1-11
As discussed in Appendix C, Air Quality Assessment, of the Draft EIR, California’s agricultural
ecosystem is centered in the San Joaquin Valley and covers 11 percent of its landscape. Farm
products produced within this area include almonds, grapes, lettuce, cotton, grains, and vegetables.
Most crop species respond positively to growth with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Over
much of the United States, a number of crop models identify beneficial effects of elevated carbon
dioxide. As stated in response to comment SC-1-9, a new power plant to serve the proposed project
would not be required. PG&E has included the project area in their long-term plans for development.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-81
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Response to Comment SC-1-12
Please see Response to Comment SC-1-10 regarding the building practices of the project applicant.
According to Castle & Cooke, homes built by them are 20 percent more energy-efficient than is
required in California. Providing this higher level of energy-efficiency adds approximately $1,500 to
$2,000 of additional direct construction costs. Solar photovoltaic systems at their current cost
structure of approximately $20,000 are not considered to be affordable to many homebuyers even
after considering the $2,000 federal tax credit that goes to buyers of the photovoltaic systems.
Response to Comment SC-1-13
The West Ming Specific Plan includes a variety of residential uses. These uses include low density,
low-medium density, high density, and high-medium density residential, The City of Bakersfield
Housing Element includes various goals, objectives, and policies. The Housing Element includes five
broad goals with objectives and policies that support each of the goals. Two of the housing goals are
applicable to the proposed project. Goal 1 is to provide housing opportunities and accessibility for all
economic segments of the City. This goal as well as the supporting objectives and policies discuss
the availability of permanent housing for all social and economic segments of the community. As
discussed above, the proposed project includes residential uses with various densities. These various
uses could provide housing for a variety of social and economic segments of the City. Goal 2 is to
provide and maintain an adequate supply of sites for the development of affordable new housing.
This goal as well as the supporting objectives and policies discuss the provision of housing sites. The
project is proposed on land that primarily has a current General Plan designation of Intensive
Agriculture, 20-acre minimum, and the site does not include housing. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project could provide additional opportunities for the City to provide affordable new
housing.
Response to Comment SC-1-14
A Higher Density Alternative is suggested by the commentor to concentrate more land uses on less
land and provide the opportunity to reduce the amount of development on prime farmland. The
proposed project has been designed with high and medium density housing within several villages on
the project site. Two of the villages are designed to accommodate densities exceeding 20.0 dwelling
units per acre. Project design would accommodate medium densities in several other villages ranging
from 5.75 dwelling units per acre and 12.0 dwelling units per acre. These proposed uses would
concentrate residents on less land than the residential developments that exist east of the project site.
One of the commentor’s suggested benefits of the High Density Alternative is to increase the
feasibility of a public transportation system (i.e., light-rail). As discussed in Response to Comment
SC-1-6, the west side of Bakersfield has been planned by the City to include a substantial amount of
low density residential which is not conducive for the implementation of a light-rail system because
such a system accommodates areas with high densities.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-83
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
4.7 - Planning Commission Hearing - October 5, 2006
Sierra Club, Gordon Nipp - October 5, 2006 (SC-2)
Comment SC-2-1
Mr. Nipp requested that the conversion of 2,182 acres of agricultural land to urban land needs to be
addressed and believes that there are feasible measures to reduce conversion impacts.
Response to Comment SC-2-1
Please see Response to Comment SC-1-1 regarding the feasibility of reduce farmland conversion
impacts.
Comment SC-2-2
Mr. Nipp identified that a number of intersections and roadway segments would be lower than level
of service C. He believes that it is unacceptable to lower the LOS to D or worse. The EIR should
consider a transit-oriented development as an alternative.
Response to Comment SC-2-2
Please see Response to Comment SC-1-6 regarding the transit-oriented alternative.
Comment SC-2-3
Mr. Nipp believes that the EIR should address the “need” for the project. He refers to the
Agricultural Conservation Policy No. 14 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which requires
evaluation of “demonstrated project need” when converting agricultural lands to a non-agricultural
use. How many projects have been approved and not yet built? Is there a need for the project?
Response to Comment SC-2-3
Please see Response to Comment SC-1-8 regarding the need of the proposed residential uses.
Comment SC-2-4
The EIR should discuss the need to construct upgraded electric facilities and determine if there is a
need to install solar photovoltaic panels to reduce impacts.
Response to Comment SC-2-4
Please see Response to Comments SC-1-9 and SC-1-10 regarding electric facilities and solar
photovoltaic panels, respectively.
Crimson Resource Management - October 5, 2006 (CRM-2)
Comment CRM-2-1
Crimson Resource Management (CRM) is concerned that the proposed project includes a change in
zoning designation from Agriculture to Residential. This zone change would require additional
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
4-84 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
measures for the oil operator if modifications to the existing well or if an additional oil well is
installed.
Response to Comment CRM-2-1
Please see Response to Comment CRM-1-1 regarding the proposed zoning district surrounding
Crimson well 52X-10.
Comment CRM-2-2
CRM would like to request a drilling island to accommodate the existing oil well as well as a
potential for a second well. CRM would like public access to the well site(s) as development is
proposed adjacent to the well sites.
Response to Comment CRM-2-2
Please see Response to Comment CRM-1-1 regarding the proposed zoning district surrounding
Crimson well 52X-10.
Comment CRM 2-3
CRM is concerned that if single lot drilling islands are established, the permit status for drilling
would change from Class 3 (no conditional use permit and special conditions) to Class 1 (conditional
use and potentially special conditions). This change in permit status would result in extra costs as
well as potentially environmental impacts on nearby residences.
Response to CRM 2-3
Please see Response to Comment CRM-1-1 regarding the proposed zoning district surrounding
Crimson well 52X-10.
Comment CRM 2-3
CRM requests that a Drill Island designation be provided in the area around their existing zone and
request that setbacks of future residential structures from the Drill Island designation be 500 feet.
Response to CRM 2-3
Please see Response to Comment CRM-1-1 regarding the proposed zoning district surrounding
Crimson well 52X-10.
Phillip Ryle - October 5, 2006 (PR)
Comment PR-1
Mr. Ryle recommends that the City prepare a plan to protect future oil and gas resources.
Response to PR-1
The comment regarding a City-wide plan is noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
and City Council for their review.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Response to Comments
Michael Brandman Associates 4-85
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec04-Responses to Comments12506.doc
Commissioner McGinnis - October 5, 2006 (CM)
Comment CM-1
Commission McGinnis asked if the preparer of the Natural Resources Impact Report talked to
Crimson Resources Management regarding the valuation of oil resources.
Response to CM-1
The Natural Resources Impact Report was prepared in November 2003 and oil prices have
substantially changed since that time. Please see Response to Comment CRM-1-1 regarding an
updated Natural Resources Impact Report prepared by WZI, Inc. in October 2006. The updated
report, which is in Attachment 2 of this Response to Comments document confirms that the valuation
estimates conducted by Ryder Scott Company in December 2005 was reasonable.
Commissioner Tragish - October 5, 2006 (CT)
Comment CT-1
Commission Tagish requested additional information on the liquefaction issue in the northwestern
portion of the Specific Plan.
Response to CT-1
Page 5.5-5 in the Draft EIR referenced a liquefaction analysis that was prepared by Soils Engineering,
Inc. in April 2005. The liquefaction study confirmed that implementation of the proposed land uses
in the northwestern portion of the project site could be significantly affected by liquefaction. In
Appendix F, Geotechnical Feasibility Study/Geological Hazard Study, of the Draft EIR and
mitigation measure 5.5.A.1 on page 5.5-6 in the Draft EIR, additional liquefaction studies are
recommended to be conducted in the northwestern portion of the project site concurrently with
submittal of a tentative subdivision map application or other development plan. This mitigation
measure is appropriate for a Program EIR because more detailed liquefaction studies will be prepared
as more detailed site planning with structure locations are provided.
Comment CT-2
Commissioner Tragish requested that the economic impact of the proposed project be discussed.
Response to Comment CT-2
An Urban Decay Study was prepared for the proposed project, summarized in Section 5, and included
in Attachment 7 of this Response to Comments document. As discussed, the proposed West Ming
Specific Plan project would not result in a significant impact in relation to urban decay. In addition,
cumulative development within the Regional Trade Area would not result in significant impacts to
existing or reasonably foreseeable retail development within the Primary Market Area.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
SECTION 5:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the West Ming Specific Plan and where a specific
comment was submitted on a technical study, if warranted, the specific revision to the technical report
is included as well. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the Draft EIR and
the technical reports, and the revisions do not change the significance of any of the environmental
findings within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number.
This Errata is separated into two sections: (1) revisions to the Draft EIR and Appendices based on
comments received on the Draft EIR, and (2) summary of technical studies and other information that
were prepared subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR. The new information provided in this
Errata does not alter the conclusions contained within the Draft EIR, but provides additional
explanations and clarifications of the impacts associated with the proposed project.
5.1 - Revisions to Draft EIR and Appendices
Following are revisions to Draft EIR based on comments received during the public review period. In
addition to revisions based on comments received during the public review period, Sections 2, 3,
5.11, 6.3.11, and 8.1 of the Draft EIR are provided to ensure consistency within the Draft EIR as well
as the Traffic Report. The revisions to the traffic sections of the draft EIR are due to an oversight of
not including the impacts and mitigation measures resulting from the project into the cumulative
discussion. All of the revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the Draft EIR and its
associated appendices and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue findings
within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underline
(underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).
Draft EIR
Page 2-5 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 5.3.A is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 5.3 in the Draft EIR.
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) (S)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Page 2-10 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 5.5.A is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 5.5 in the Draft EIR.
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) (S)
Page 2-17 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 5.7.C is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 5.7 in the Draft EIR.
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) (S)
Page 2-19 of the Draft EIR
The following is added as the level of significance after mitigation for Impact 5.8.A. The level of
significance after mitigation was correctly addressed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR.
Less than significant.
Page 2-19 of the Draft EIR
The following is added as the level of significance after mitigation for Impact 5.8.B. The level of
significance after mitigation was correctly addressed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR.
Less than significant.
Page 2-21 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 5.8.F is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 5.8 in the Draft EIR.
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) (LTS)
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Page 2-22 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 5.9.C is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 5.9 in the Draft EIR.
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)
(S)
Page 2-32 of the Draft EIR
The determination at the end of the discussion for Impact 6.3.9.B is revised as follows. The level of
significance was correctly addressed in Section 6.3.9 in the Draft EIR.
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) (LTS)
Page 3-12 of the Draft EIR
Table 3-3 is revised as follows:
Zoning District Acreage
WM - R1 44844.5
WM - R2 1,358
WM - R3 43
WM - CO 41
WM - GC 9
WM - TC 63
WM - DI 2.5
WM - SU 220
Source: West Ming Specific Plan 2006.
Page 3-39 of the Draft EIR
The following is added to the end of the page:
State Reclamation Board
Encroachment Permit
The project will require an encroachment permit for the proposed extension of the
existing levee as well as any other improvements within the existing Kern River
Designated Floodway.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Page 5.1-12 and 2-3 of the Draft EIR
The following mitigation measure is added to reduce project impacts due to the conversion of
agricultural land. With the implementation of the mitigation measure below, the project’s impact on
agricultural land is reduced to the maximum extent feasible and will be substantially lessen; however,
the level of impact due to the conversion of agricultural land would still be considered significant and
unavoidable:
5.1.A.1 Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map for urban development, or approval of
a Site Plan Review by the City of Bakersfield, whichever occurs first, the applicant
shall mitigate loss of 2,182 acres of agricultural lands by selecting one or more of the
items described below. Agricultural land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide importance established by the State Department of
Conservation. In addition, as indicated at the same time described above, the
applicant shall submit written verification of the applicant’s compliance of this
mitigation to the Planning Director’s satisfaction.
Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s
approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying
agricultural land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced,
Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, Kern) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written
evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.
• Funding and purchase of agricultural conservation easements. Such
easements shall be managed and maintained by an appropriate entity.
• Purchase of credits from an established agricultural farmland mitigation
bank.
• Contribution of agricultural land or equivalent funding to an organization
that provides for the preservation of farmland in California.
• During the life of the project, if the City of Bakersfield or other responsible
agency adopts an agricultural land mitigation program that provides equal
or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the applicant may
choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of
agricultural land impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program,
the applicant shall obtain written approval from the City of Bakersfield
agreeing to the participation, and the applicant shall submit written
verification of compliance with the alternate program at the same time
described above in the first paragraph.
The mitigation provided above shall be completed as lands within the project are developed such that
mitigation will occur at least contemporaneously with the development of such lands.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Page 5.6-9 of the Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure 5.6.G.1 is revised as follows:
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.
Page 5.12-2 of the Draft EIR
The first sentence of the first full paragraph is revised as follows:
Furthermore, the City has acquired water rights for Kern River flows for
approximately 140,000 160,000 acre-feet per year.
Page 3-38 of the Draft EIR
The first bullet under General Plan Circulation Element Amendment is revised to reflect the correct
portion of Renfro Road as follows:
Extension of Ming Avenue as an arterial east west of Renfro Road to the proposed
West Beltway.
Page 5.11-6 of the Draft EIR
The following intersection under the subheading “Roadway Network,” 1st bullet-point under
Westside Parkway is revised as follows:
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.
Page 5.11-16 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment is added under the heading “Year 2030 - Roadway Segment
Analysis” after the third bullet:
Ming Avenue - Old River Road to Gosford Road.
Page 5.11-16 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment is added under the heading “Year 2030 - Roadway Segment
Analysis” after the fifth bullet:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Ming Avenue - New Stine Road to Old Stine Road.
Page 5.11-17 and Page 2-23 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “5.11.A.1,” within “Year
2015 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-23 (2nd bullet) and on page 5.11-17 (2nd bullet) and is
amended as follows (This improvement was previously identified as laneage “required to comply
with City Ordinance at construction of the off-ramp.” However, this additional improvement is the
laneage required to operate at an acceptable LOS when the signal is warranted):
Allen Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal and construct
two southbound left turn lanes.
Page 6-29 and 2-33 of the Draft EIR
The following introductory paragraph under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1” in Table 2-1 on
page 2-33 and on page 6-29 under the heading, “Mitigation Measures” for “6.3.11.A.1” is revised as
follows:
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 (i.e., the cumulative growth of “background-related” traffic
with the addition and contribution of project-generated traffic) in the years 2015 and
2030 are as follows (Note: All project-generated impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures/improvements are included in both Section 5.11 and Section
6.3.11).
Page 6-24 of the Draft EIR
The following intersection is listed twice under the heading “Year 2015 - Intersections,” therefore the
reference to improvements required at AM Peak (third bullet from bottom of page) is removed as the
required improvements at PM Peak (first bullet) govern as follows:
Allen Roadway and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (AM Peak)
Page 6-25 of the Draft EIR
The following intersection is added under the heading “Year 2015 - Intersections,” and therefore, it is
added after 2nd bullet on page, as follows:
Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak)
Page 6-26 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment is added under the heading “Year 2015 - Roadway Segments” after
the 15th bullet on page, as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound
Ramps.
Page 6-27 of the Draft EIR
The following intersection is added under the heading “Year 2030 - Intersections” after the fourth
bullet on page, as follows:
Ming Avenue and New Stine Road (PM Peak).
Page 6-28 of the Draft EIR
The following intersection is added under the heading “Year 2030 - Intersections” after the 14th bullet
on page, as follows:
McCutchen Road and Gosford Road (PM Peak).
Page 6-29 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment is added under the heading “Year 2030 - Roadway Segments” after
the 13th bullet on page, as follows:
Gosford Road - McCutchen Road to Taft Highway.
Page 6-29 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment under the heading “Year 2030 - Roadway Segments” (23rd bullet on
page), is revised as follows:
Panama Lane - Wible Road to NB SB 99 Ramps.
Page 6-30 and 2-34 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2015 -
Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-34 (16th bullet on page) and on page 6-30 (19th bullet on page) is
revised as follows:
Panama Lane and West Beltway Southbound Ramps - Install signal and construct
one westbound left turn lane, two southbound right turn lanes, and one eastbound
through lane.
Page 6-30 and 2-34 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2015 -
Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-34 (17th bullet on page) and on page 6-30 (20th bullet on page) is
revised as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Panama Lane and West Beltway Northbound Ramps - Install signal and construct
two eastbound left turn lanes, one westbound right turn lane, one northbound right
turn lane, and one westbound through lane.
Page 6-30 and 2-34 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2015 - Roadway Segments” in Table 2-1 on page 2-35 (after 5th bullet) and on page 6-31 (after 5th
bullet) as follows:
Coffee Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound
Ramps - Add two lanes.
Page 6-32 and 2-36 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2015 - Roadway Segments” in Table 2-1 on page 2-36 (after 17th bullet on page) and on page 6-32
(after 13th bullet on page) as follows:
Allen Road - Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway Eastbound
Ramps - Add two lanes.
Page 6-33 and 2-38 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2030 -
Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-38 (8th bullet on page) and on page 6-33 (16th bullet) is revised
as follows:
Stockdale Highway and New Stine Road - Construct one eastbound right turn lane,
one eastbound left turn lane, one northbound right turn lane, and one southbound
through lane.
Page 6-33 and 2-38 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2030 -
Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-38 (9th bullet on page) and on page 6-33 (17th bullet) is revised
as follows:
Ming Avenue and Buena Vista Road - Construct one westbound right turn lane, one
northbound turnthrough lane, and one southbound through lane.
Page 6-35 and 2-40 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2030 -
Roadway Segments” in Table 2-1 on page 2-40 (7th bullet) and on page 6-35 (7th bullet) is revised as
follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Calloway Drive - Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway - Add two
lanes, construct as divided highway.
Page 6-36 and 2-41 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2030 -
Roadway Segments” in Table 2-1 on page 2-41 (13th bullet on page) and on page 6-36 (12th bullet on
page) is revised as follows:
Panama Lane - Gosford Road to Ashe Road - Add four two lanes.
Page 6-36 and 2-41 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement under the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year 2030 -
Roadway Segments” in Table 2-1 on page 2-41 (14th bullet on page) and on page 6-36 (13th bullet on
page) is revised as follows:
Panama Lane - Ashe Road to Stine Road - Add two four lanes.
Page 6-33 and 2-37 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2030 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-37 (after 7th bullet) and on page 6-33 (after 7th bullet) as
follows:
Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive - Construct one southbound through lane.
Page 6-33 and 2-38 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2030 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-38 (after 3rd bullet on page) and on page 6-33 (after 11th
bullet) as follows:
Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps - Construct one northbound
left turn lane, one southbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane, and one
southbound through lane.
Page 6-33 and 2-38 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2030 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-38 (before 4th bullet on page) and on page 6-33 (before
12th bullet) as follows:
Coffee Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Construct one eastbound
right turn lane, one southbound through lane, one northbound through lane, one
northbound right turn lane, and southbound left turn lane.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Page 6-34 and 2-38 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2030 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-38 (after 9th bullet on page) and on page 6-34 (before 1st
bullet on page) as follows:
Ming Avenue and Gosford Road - Construct one eastbound through lane, one
westbound through lane, one northbound through lane, and one southbound through
lane.
Page 6-35 and 2-40 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2030 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-40 (before 1st bullet on page) and on page 6-35 (after 2nd
bullet on page) as follows:
Panama Lane and Gosford Road - Construct one eastbound left turn lane, two
eastbound through lanes, one eastbound right turn lane, one westbound left turn lane,
two westbound through lanes, one northbound left turn lane, one northbound through
lane, one northbound right turn lane, one southbound left turn lane, two southbound
through lanes, and provide overlapping phase for westbound right turn lane.
Page 6-30 and 2-33 of the Draft EIR
The following required improvement is added to the mitigation measure “6.3.11.A.1,” within “Year
2015 - Intersections” in Table 2-1 on page 2-33 (after 5th bullet on page) and on page 6-30 (after 2nd
bullet on page) as follows:
Allen Road and Westside Parkway Eastbound Ramps - Install signal.
Page 6-37 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment under the heading “Level of Significance After Mitigation” on page
6-37 (1st bullet on page) is revised as follows:
Ming Avenue from Ashe Road to New Stine Road (LOS B C to LOS D).
Page 6-37 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment under the heading “Level of Significance After Mitigation” on page
6-37 (4th bullet on page) is incorrectly listed here and is hereby deleted as follows:
Calloway Drive from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Stockdale Highway
(LOS A to LOS E).
Page 6-37 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment under the heading “Level of Significance After Mitigation” on page
6-37 (5th bullet on page) is revised as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Coffee Road from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (LOS A B
to LOS ED).
Page 6-30 and 2-34 of the Draft EIR
The following roadway segment under the heading “Level of Significance After Mitigation” on page
6-37 (6th bullet on page) is revised as follows:
Coffee Road from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps (LOS A B to LOS E).
Page 8-1 of the Draft EIR
The following bullet-point includes roadway segments that result in significant unavoidable
cumulative impacts. These impacts were identified in Section 6.3.11 in the Draft EIR; however, they
were not included in Section 8.1 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the following is added after the 1st
bullet-point on page 8-1, as follows:
With the addition of background-related traffic, intersections and roadway segments
will exceed the established thresholds for the Years 2015 and 2030 without project
even with the improvements that are required for the Years 2015 and 2030 with
project. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, cumulative
projects (including 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 from Ashe Road to New Stine Road (LOS C 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)
Coffee Road from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps (LOS B
to LOS D)
Coffee Road from Westside Parkway Westbound Ramps to Westside Parkway
Eastbound Ramps (LOS B to LOS E)
Therefore, cumulative projects 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.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Appendices
Traffic Report (Appendix L)
The Draft EIR included a prior version of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The primary difference
between the version included in the Draft EIR and the current version (April 3, 2006) is that the prior
version included incorrect fee summaries. Accordingly, page 36 of the TIS and Tables 6 and 10 of
the TIS that were included in the Draft EIR did not contain correct fee references. However, these
fees were not directly referenced in the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, and therefore,
the clarification of these fees will not result in a substantial change to the Draft EIR. The changes to
the TIS (Appendix L of Draft EIR) are as follows:
Page 36
Under the subheading Conclusions: “The summary of the impact fees including both ‘Local’ and
‘Regional’ impact fees as calculated herein on Tables 6, 8, and 10” are revised as follows:
Single Family Residential: $2,117.25$1,067.14 per dwelling unit (4748 D.U.’s)
Multi Family Residential: $1,404.80$779.05 per dwelling unit (2702 D.U.’s)
General Commercial: $212.35$120.44 per daily trip (13,918 ADT)
Office Commercial: $304.10$123.83 per daily trip (4,088 ADT)
Light Industrial: $123.06$281.43 per daily trip (10,342 ADT)
Page 60
Table 6: The “Project’s Pro-Rata Share Cost Summary” is revised as follows:
Single
Family
Residential
Multi
Family
Residential
General
Commercial
Office
Commercial
Light
Industrial Total
Regional
Transportation Impact
Fee (See Table 10)
Calculated in
accordance with COB
Methodology
$9,182,779$4,
196,824
$3,443,542$
1,752,768
$2,678,310$1,
404,709
$1,147,847$4
12,741
$2,678,310$
1,040,253
$19,130,789
$8,807,295
Total Traffic Impact
Fees:
$10,052,715$5
,066,761
$3,795,769$
2,104,994
$2,955,478$1,
681,877
$1,243,177$5
08,071
$2,910,582$
1,272,524
$20,957,722
$10,634,227
Per Dwelling Unit
Cost / Per Average
Daily Trip Cost
$1,067.14$2,1
17.25
per D.U.
$779.05$1,4
04.80
per D.U.
$120.44$212.
35
per D.U.
$123.83$304.
10
per D.U.
$123.06$281
.43
per D.U.
—
Flood Study (Appendix I)
The appendices to the Flood Study were inadvertently not included in Appendix I of the Draft EIR;
therefore, these appendices are included in Attachment 3 of this Response to Comments document as
a revised Flood Study. The revised Flood Study is hereby added to Appendix I of the EIR.
Lake Report (Appendix I)
The first paragraph of page 2-1 is revised as follows:
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
The two primary functions of the West Ming Specific Plan water features are to
enhance aesthetics and provide recreation opportunities for the residents of the West
Ming Specific Plan project and nearby area. The proposed project plans for the
construction of one five-acre lake within the Village Center District. Although the
lake will be private, it will be accessible to the public by means of the trail system.
Final project design for the West Ming Specific Plan may determine that the water
elements within the Specific Plan area will include a system of man-made lakes. A
lake system including 10 lakes was analyzed in this report. Detention Basins may
also be used within the project area, and may be incorporated within the water
features of the project.1
1 Project water features may serve as "detention basins" for peak flows, with outfall
to ultimate “retention basisns” and/or the Kern River Canal.
Based on the above revision, a revised Lake Report was prepared and included in Attachment 4. This
revised Lake Report hereby replaces the original Lake Report that is in Appendix I of the Draft EIR.
Water Supply Assessment (Appendix M)
Page 3
The first sentence of page 3 of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is revised as follows:
Without specific information as to the different service entities, a mass water balance
within the City of Bakersfield area consists of the following: population 295,893
(KernCOG); assuming 325 gallons per capita per day, an estimated annual water
consumption of 89,946 107, 700 acre-feet per year (afy); average annual surface
water supplies that are treated and directly delivered to municipal users total
approximately 30,000 afy with the remaining 77,700 afy being supplies by
groundwater pumping.
Page 9
The following table is incorporated after the last paragraph in Section V(C):
2800 Acres Recharge Facility Operations
Calendar Year Spreading (AF) Losses (AF) Recovery (AF) Groundwater
Storage (AF)
1999 0 0 6,741 205,632
2000 0 0 3,426 202,206
2001 64 0 9,227 193,043
2002 156 0 14,084 179,115
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
2003 89 0 8,416 170,788
2004 144 0 14,092 156,840
2005 32,573 1,953 2,860 184,600
Notes:
1. Source: 2005 City of Bakersfield Urban Water Management Plan
2. Spreading and loss data sets area current through 7/31/2006 with recovery data current through 6/30/2006.
All other tables have been subsequently renumbered throughout the WSA.
Page 11
The first paragraph of Section VI(A) is revised as follows:
Unlike groundwater supplies, river flows have a high degree of variability. In order
to account for the hydrologic variability of the Kern River, statistical analysis of flow
data typically includes probability of occurrence graph along with a bar chart based
on annual volume. Historic Kern River flow data was obtained from the California
Department of Water Resource (DWR) Division of Flood Management Data
Exchange Center website and the Kern County Watermaster. The flow measuring
point of DWR is downstream of Lake Isabella and the site ID for this location is
KRB. The Kern River Watermaster records flow diversions at a site known as the
First Point of Measurement, rebuilt in 1981.
Page 11
Section VI(B) is revised as follows:
Kern River is not the only surface water source available to the City of Bakersfield;
water is also obtained from the Improvement District (ID) #4. ID #4 was formed by
resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the KCWA on December 21, 1971 to
provide supplemental water supply for portions of the Bakersfield metropolitan area
through implementation of water from the State Water Project (SWP).
Approximately 65% of the district is within the limits of the City of Bakersfield. The
City service area covers about 20% to 30% of ID #4. Waters made available to the
City of Bakersfield from ID #4 are only permitted for use within the actual
boundaries of the District. Currently, ID #4 has an annual entitlement of 93,546 acre
feet. Actual allocations from the SWP in any year are subject to hydrologic
variability of the State Project.
Page 30
The following footnote is added to Table 5:
If Kern River supplies are reduced by 70,000 af, the total amount of surplus water
supply decreases to 31,000 af.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
Based on the above revisions, a revised Water Supply Assessment was prepared by Provost &
Prichard in October 2006 and included in Attachment 5 of this Response to Comments document.
This revised Water Supply Assessment hereby replaces the original Water Supply Assessment that is
in Appendix M of the Draft EIR. In addition to the above revisions, additional revisions were
incorporated in the revised Water Supply Assessment as a result of comments submitted by City staff.
The primary revision in the document relates to the City of Bakersfield’s Kern River water rights.
According to the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department, the August 2006 WSA had
underestimated the City’s annual average Kern River water right at 140,000 acre feet per year (af/yr);
the Water Resources Department citing the 2005 Water Balance Report, indicated that the City of
Bakersfield’s annual average Kern River water right is actually 160,000 af/yr. The WSA was updated
to reflect this new information. Additional language was added to further document and substantiate
the City of Bakersfield’s Kern River water rights and the allocation of the water that is secured by
those rights (see Section III of the Water Supply Assessment that is in Attachment 5 of this Response
to Comments document). Given, that this clarification identifies that the City has 20,000 af/yr greater
of Kern River water rights than was documented in the August 2006 WSA, there is no new significant
impact in relation to the conclusions of the WSA analysis contained within the August 2006
document and the Final October 2006 document.
Secondly, at the request of the City, Provost & Pritchard removed language in regards to the long-
term contracts between the City of Bakersfield and certain irrigation districts. These contracts expire
in 2012.
Lastly, at the request of the City, Tables 7 and 8 in the document were revised for clarification.
Provost & Pritchard revised both tables to identify the amount of recharged reclaimed water. These
revisions did not alter the final calculations but rather these revisions were intended to provide further
clarification of the City’s water supplies.
All other revisions were either minor clarifications and/or the correction of typographical errors and
did not impact the context or analysis of the document. As previously stated, none of the revisions
altered the final conclusions in regards to the provision of water to the West Ming Specific Plan
project site or the water demand of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, these revisions
are minor modifications and clarifications to the technical studies and the revisions do not change the
significance of any of the environmental issue findings within the Draft EIR.
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
5.2 - Summary of Technical Studies and Other Information Prepared after the Release
of the Draft EIR
Housing Needs Analysis
A Housing Needs Analysis was prepared by The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. in October 2006 for the
West Ming Specific Plan project. Following is a brief summary of the analysis, and it is included in
its entirety in Attachment 6 of this Response to Comments document.
The West Ming Specific Plan project site is located in the Metro Southwest Regional Statistical Area
(RSA) and is immediately adjacent to the Metro North of the River (NOA) RSA. Collectively, these
two RSA’s represent the west Bakersfield housing market area and are the most relevant sub-area for
the housing needs analysis. Housing projections for the study area for 2030 are based on the
officially adopted forecasts from Kern Council of Governments (COG). The 2040 projection was
developed by The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. based on countywide population growth forecasted by
the California State Department of Finance.
Between 2006 and 2030, the projected demand for new housing units in the overall Metropolitan
Bakersfield area is 98,486. Of that total projected growth, 65,019 new housing units are projected to
be added in the Metro Southwest/NOR RSAs between 2006 and 2030. Based on cumulative projects
within Metropolitan Bakersfield as well as within the Metro Southwest/NOR RSAs, the projected
supply of housing in Metropolitan Bakersfield is 99,219 housing units, of which 66,489 housing units
are projected to be supplied in the Metro Southwest/NOR RSAs. The projected supply of housing
does not have a projection year; therefore, the projects assumed to be completed by 2030 include all
projects currently in the development process except those where Notices of Preparation were
recently issued. Based on this assumption, the implementation of cumulative projects and the
proposed project within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area will result in an over supply of housing of
733 housing units between 2006 and 2030 which represents approximately 0.7 percent of the
projected growth. This projected over supply is considered not significant because the City of
Bakersfield has experienced that many projects ultimately construct fewer units than the maximum
approved.
Between 2006 and 2040, the projected demand for new housing units was provided for the overall
Metropolitan Bakersfield area. This projected demand is 146,434 housing units. The projected
supply of housing based on the cumulative projects (including those projects where Notices of
Preparation were recently issued) is 133,433 housing units. In comparing the demand with the supply
between 2006 and 2040, there is a substantial under supply (unmet demand) of housing units of
13,001 housing units, which represents 9.7 percent of the projected growth.
The proposed project includes 7,450 dwelling units to the overall Metropolitan Bakersfield area’s
increasing demand for housing. Based on an approximate equal supply and demand for the period
between 2006 and 2030 and a substantial unmet housing demand for the period between 2006 and
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
2040, the proposed housing units that are part of the project has been determined to be needed to meet
the projected demand.
In addition to the quantitative need for the proposed project, there are also locational factors that
make the West Ming Specific Plan project an important piece of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area's
future housing development process. The proposed development site is immediately adjacent to the
Seven Oaks community and other projects are developing south and west of the project site.
Infrastructure (water lines, sewer lines, major roadways, etc.) available to the serve the project is
located along the eastern project boundaries. Moreover, the master planning of an entire community,
such as the West Ming Specific Plan, achieves a more comprehensive planning process and a higher
level of coordination, which could not be accomplished if the project were developed on a piecemeal
basis or with a short term planning approach.
Urban Decay Study
An Urban Decay Study was prepared by The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. in November 2006 for the
West Ming Specific Plan project. Following is a brief summary of the analysis, and it is included in
its entirety in Attachment 7 of this Response to Comments document.
The Urban Decay Study evaluates the potential for the retail components of the West Ming Specific
Plan to cause urban decay as a result of the retail component of the proposed project (both
individually and cumulatively). Specifically, the study evaluates the extent to which the proposed
project would have competitive impacts on the existing retail trade facilities in the trade area and
consequently have the potential to result in urban decay.
For purposes of this analysis, urban decay is defined as physical effects including, but not limited to,
facilities that are poorly maintained and in disrepair, deterioration of buildings and improvements,
visual and aesthetic impacts related to physical deterioration, increased instances of property crimes
including graffiti, and increased demand for police and emergency response services, which result
from individual or cumulative increases in retail closures and consequent long-term vacancies.
The study is based in part on two assumptions, both of which resulted in a conservative analysis of
the effects of the proposed project on urban decay. First, it was assumed that income levels will
remain constant in real dollar terms and while it is generally accepted that incomes are underreported
by 13 percent, there was not an attempt to adjust incomes. Second, the estimates of potential support
for new retail space are based solely in resident/household demand. Thus, the demand estimates do
not include visitors and businesses as potential sources of market support. It is generally accepted
that a retail market analysis apply a factor of 5 to 10 percent to the total income of the trade area to
account for these additional sources of market support.
As stated, the Urban Decay Study evaluates impacts that occur individually with the development of
project-related retail space and collectively with project-related retail space and all known pending
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
and reasonably foreseeable future retail development projects. For purposes of evaluating the
individual project-related impacts, a Primary Market Area (PMA) was established that encompasses a
5-mile radius around the project site. The PMA is consistent with the International Council of
Shopping Centers who has identified trade areas for community scale retail facilities as typically 3 to
6 miles. For purposes of evaluating cumulative impacts, the Regional Trade Area is defined by the
PMA and the Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) of the Metro North of the River (NOR) RSA, Metro
Southwest (SW) RSA, Greater Shaft RSA, and the Greater Taft/Maricopa RSA.
As noted in the Draft EIR, the project includes a total of 1,945,080 square feet of commercial and
industrial development, which includes both retail and commercial office land uses. Based upon
additional information provided by the applicant, the project is anticipated to include the construction
of 525,890 square feet of retail space and 1,419,190 square feet of non-retail space, that will be
developed between the years 2010 and 2027. The cumulative retail projects in the Regional Trade
Area is projected to include the construction of 3,776,739 square feet of retail space that will be
developed between 2012 and 2027. However, it should be noted that the PMA will only capture a
share of the retail demand from the greater external cumulative regional trade area, thus the study
applied a discount to the planned retail space outside of the PMA. Therefore, for purposes of
analysis, after the discount adjustment is applied, the study considers 3,171,835 square feet of
cumulative retail space development between the years 2012 and 2027 (see Table II-2 and Section
IV-E of the Urban Decay Study for further discussion of the discount calculation).
Project-Related Urban Decay Impacts
Currently within the West Ming PMA, there is approximately 2.1 million square feet of retail space,
with a vacancy rate of 1.5 percent. This vacancy rate reflects a market where finding available retail
space to occupy is difficult because a healthy retail market (i.e., markets where available retail space
to occupy is not too difficult or where retail space is not too abundant) typically have an occupancy
rate that ranges from 5 to 10 percent. The demand analysis concluded that there is the potential
market support for $7.18 million in total retail sales in the West Ming PMA, which translates into
approximately 2.5 million square feet of currently supportable retail space. Thus considering that
there is presently 2.1 million square feet of retail space within the West Ming PMA, the PMA could
currently support an additional 400,000 square feet of retail space.
Growth projections for the West Ming PMA indicate that by the year 2020 there will be a demand for
an additional 1.59 million square feet of retail space and by the year 2028 (one year after project
buildout) there will be a demand for an additional 2.1 million square feet of retail space.
Therefore, the project’s proposed net increase of 525,890 square feet of retail space development
could be accommodated within the West Ming PMA by the year 2020, and by the year 2028, the
proposed project would absorb less than 25 percent of the demand for new retail space. Based on
these findings, the proposed project’s retail component would not result in economic impacts to
exiting stores in the trade area. Moreover, retail stores would not be forced to close solely as a result
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Response to Comments Errata
Michael Brandman Associates 5-19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
of the proposed project. As indicated earlier, urban decay would result in a physical effect that would
lead to an environmental impact if it would increase retail closures and consequent long-term
vacancies. Therefore, individually, the West Ming Specific Plan project would result in a less than
significant urban decay impact.
Cumulative Urban Decay Impacts
The Urban Decay Study examined the impacts of growth of retail space within the RTA upon the
PMA. As noted above, when the discount calculations are applied to the actual projected growth in
the RTA, the RTA is projected to have 3,171,835 square feet of retail space development (including
100 percent of the proposed development within the PMA) that could potentially have a cumulative
impact on the PMA.
If all planned and pending retail space development occurs according to development plans, the
market would be slightly overbuilt in the year 2020. According to projections, development of all
planned and pending projects would result in 3 million square feet of retail development; however,
projections indicate that in the year 2020, there would be a demand for 2.6 million square feet of
retail space. Thus, there would be a surplus of 400,000 square feet of retail space; yet this is a
temporary impact as projections indicate that the supply and demand for retail space would be
balanced by the year 2024. Moreover, it is likely that infrastructure constraints and retail market
conditions would result in a more gradual buildout of planned retail development such that the pace
of retail development would more closely follow the growth in retail demand. In the year 2028 (one-
year after project buildout) demand for new retail space is forecasted to reach 3.44 million square
feet, and projections indicate that in the year 2028 development of all planned and pending projects
within the RTA, there would be a need for approximately 273,000 square feet of retail space in the
PMA in addition to the 3.17 million square feet projected with cumulative projects. Under the
cumulative scenario, cumulative retail development within the PMA would result in less than
significant urban decay impacts.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
A Fiscal Impact Assessment (FIA) was prepared by Development Planning & Financial Group, Inc.
in November 2006 for the West Ming Specific Plan project. Following is a brief summary of the
analysis, and it is included in its entirety in Attachment 8 of this Response to Comments document.
The FIA examines the fiscal impact of the West Ming Specific Plan project on the City of
Bakersfield. It is acknowledged in the Draft EIR (see Section 5.9, Public Services) that the proposed
project will increase the need for public services. However, while the proposed project will demand
public services, it will also generate tax dollars that will support such services. Specifically, the West
Ming Specific Plan project will generate additional income for the General Fund primarily through
increased sales tax, property taxes, and franchise taxes. The findings of the FIA concluded that the
proposed project will cost the City of Bakersfield $10,070243 while it will create $10,576,253 in
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Errata Response to Comments
5-20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\02160029_RTC Sec05-Responses to Comments.doc
revenue; thereby, resulting in a surplus of $506,009 for the City, which is considered a beneficial
impact.
Other Information
Agricultural Resources
Page 5.1-1 of the Draft EIR includes a discussion regarding harvested land in Kern County. Kern
County contains 866,226 acres of harvested land, according to the 2003 Agricultural Crop Report
prepared by the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. As of 2005, there were 873,005
acres of harvested land in Kern County according to the 2005 Agricultural Crop Report. The
Agricultural Crop Report does not provide information regarding the total number of acres of prime
farmland in Kern County. However, the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act 2004 Status
Report, a biennial report of statewide enrollment data for the Williamson Act provides prime
farmland information for land under the Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone program. The
2004 report provided data for 2003. As of 2003, there were 674,599 acres of prime farmland under
the Land Conservation (Williamson) Act, and 139,639 acres enrolled in Farmland Security Zone
program (a provision under the Williamson Act); for a total of 814,238 acres of prime farmland in
Kern County enrolled in this agricultural land protection program. This information has not been
updated since the preparation of the 2004 Status Report.
Traffic
For clarification, on page 5.11-11 of the Draft EIR, there is a discussion of improvements that are not
dictated by project impacts. The improvements that are identified are either project created
intersections or project created approaches at existing intersections. These are improvements that will
be required to be built by the project at the time of development adjacent to these intersections.
Therefore, they are not necessarily mitigation measures required at existing intersections due to
project created impacts, but rather improvements that will be constructed by the project as the project
develops. Many of these improvements would not be built if development of the proposed project
does not occur.
Improvements to existing facilities and construction of future facilities adjacent to the project will be
required as development of the project occurs. These improvements will be tied to various portions
of the project as those specific projects are submitted for approval. Timing of improvements to
regional facilities not adjacent to the project will be based on the City of Bakersfield’s current Capital
Improvement Plan. The “significance thresholds” referred to in the Draft EIR will be based on the
service levels of the various facilities. As future traffic volumes increase and service levels of various
facilities decrease, those improvements included in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program
(RTIF) will be constructed as necessary to accommodate the increased traffic volumes. Those RTIF
improvements will either be built by the City through implementation of the City’s current Capital
Improvement Plan or built by various projects adjacent to those affected facilities through
development agreements between the City and the various developers.