HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUSINESS PLAN
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
,I
I
I
II
~NITIAL STUDY
AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOR.RJS SCHOOL D~§TR.~C1
N(Q)rris Elementary 5)ch(Q)(Q)~
Property ACq]!Lnn$n~n(Q)~
August 2004
.
Quad Knopf
f, ,~
~SJ~//
'"' tf/ //
,/.....~.~'
/
,/
e
e
Meeting notes
STOCKDALE TOWERS
3/19/04
Attending: R. Huey, David Weirather, Howard Wines, Jaime Hickok, Jeff Goddard
The following tasks were agreed upon to detennine what if any corrective action needs to
be accomplished for this facility
1) List of all occupants DW
2) By occupant list find which occupants have had permits taken out from
building or fire DW for fire JG for building
3) Review all permits to determine if the permits have been finagled or not
4) Determine if we have occupants that should have been permanent but were
not. DW / RH
5) Determine if we have areas that have been occupied that have not received
final inspection approval. DW / RH
6) Review findings to evaluate the need for enforcement action RH / HW
7) Final inspection... of the entire building for fire prevention JH
~. - - - - -.. -. - -. - -.. -.. - - - -.. -.. - - - -.. -,
, '
!
L.._____._.._.___._.._____._.._____._~
[1~W~lli @[P 'IT~~@[N]DW&[1
5110 West Cypress Avenue
P ,0. Box 3699
Visalia, CA 93278
DATE I Õ~2°58
Phone {SSg} 733-0440 FAX {SSg} 733-7821 8-16-04
ATTENTION
REo
TO City of Bakersfield Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Fire Department
2101 H Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
),
WE ARE SENDING YOU
o Shop drawings
o Copy of letter
IZI Attached OUnder separate cover via _ the following items:
o Prints 0 Plans 0 . Samples 0 Specifications
o Change order 0 _
(
COPIES DATE NO, DESCRIPTION
1 8-2004 Draft Initial Studv/Mitiaated Neaative Declaration
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
o For approval D Approved as submitted
IZI For your use 0 Approved as noted
o As requested 0 Returned for corrections
D Resubmit _ copies for approval
o Submit _ copies for distribution
o Return _ corrected prints
o For review and comment
o FOR BIDS DUE _
D_
O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED: ~ ~
Jan Chubbuck
If endosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NORRIS SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
August 2004
Lead Agency:
Norris School District
6940 Callaway Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Contact Person:
Wallace E. McCormick, Ph.D
Superintendent
Phone: (661) 387-7000
Fax: (661) 399-9750
Consultant:
Quad Knopf, Inc.
5110 W. Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 3699
Visalia, CA 93278
Contact Person:
Stephen Peck
Principal Planner
Phone: (559) 733-0440
Fax: (559) 733-7821
04258
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section One - Introduction
1.1 CEQA Requirements ................................................................... ........................ 1-1
1.2 Prior Environmental Documents ......................................................................... 1-2
Section Two - Project Description
2.1 Project Location.......................................... ......................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Description............. ............................................ ..................................... 2-1
2.3 Environmental Setting ......... .... ................. ......... ............. ...... ....... ...... ...... ............ 2-1
. Earth..................................................................................................................... 2-1
Air Quality........................................................................................................... 2-1
Water Resources.................................................................................................. 2-4
Biological Resources........................................................................................... 2-5
Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 2-5
Utilities................................................................................................................ 2-5
Section Three - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
3.1 Environmental Checklist and Discussion ............................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Aesthetics........................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.2 Agriculture Resources ....................................................................... 3-5
3.1.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................... 3-8
3.1.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................... 3-9
3.1.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................... 3 -11
3 .1.6 Geology/Soils............ ...................................................................... 3 -12
3.1.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials.... ............. ............... .......... ................ 3-14
3.1.8 Hydrology/Water Quality ................................................................ 3-18
3.1.9 Land Use/Planning........................................ ............................ ....... 3-21
3.1.10 Mineral Resources. ............................. .................... ...... .......... ......... 3-23
3.1.11 Noise ................................................................................................ 3-24
3.1.12 Population and Housing................................................................... 3-26
3.1.13 Public Services................................................................................. 3 - 2 7
3.1.14 Recreation........................................................................................ 3 - 30
3.1.15 ..Transportation/Traffic.................................................................... 3-31
3.1.16 Utilities/Service Systems ................................................................. 3-33
3.2 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................. ............................. ...... 3-34
Section Four - List of Persons that Prepared Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration................ .................... ...... ..................... 4-1
Section Five - Persons and Agencies Contacted.......................................................... 5-1
i
·1':
'.
,', "
"1'
',.;,
·1":
.,
I
1."'1' >
I;'
I·
I
"I':"
,",.i
1::'1
"'·'1"
, :';
, . ,
;1"
, , ,~-. '....,
I",;
'\'''' ,
I
".
i I' J.-,
I",;'
~I'" ',..
,il·
,.
'I"",'··
. " ~.
, '
, "
"1'
:'-', /,
. ,.,
. ~ to',' '
"I'
..
" .
'··,.'1- ",:
"
,I:',. ~
,'I",·'
. ,
,.
, "
"I' .
. '.)
, ,,~
...
...j.
, ,
.,
"
,.
~ ,",
, ,
,;
. ,
", '
;-'-'
..""
.,...
..
, ,
, '
" '
..¡ .
,
" .
"'"
, '...','
\
',"
.,';'
.,
.,,,'
1..
.,' ':
'I. (.' ':'
...~
, '!:.'
" ':.
.'
'.
.. '
.~ '
"
, ,
.'
-:"
~ - .~
"
",1, _,
l :'
. ',J_
. ,
.
". "
'j \'
",' <..(
, .:~
"
,,'
... I ,.
"
",.
'!..,
. .."
"
" ,
,'v _>
. ~ . .
"',
'i. .'
",.1
. .
..'.
"
"
, ,
.; "
4, ~,
,. .
, .,
: "
.<
....
'..,r
, ,
'v:
.j"
:: f.
, .
'.'
~ '.~ ':, .
,":
:..' '....
<,.;
.,;' ... ~¡..
"->
,
..
" ..
, '
; .
, ~ "
.' ~.
'.',
,.,,-
'.'
, ..
",-,.,.
"
, ,
.'
. ,~' ), '
, .
'.'
;.
'J '
".
,',
~, . .
, .
.,
7.
¡'¡:"
~', ¡ '. .
~', .
, .
",'"
"
. ·...f
..
, ~ . .
'j'
,)
:'
..
'\; <-:'
"
",
.
, ,
,.
.... "
..,
" ,~...'
" ('
, ,
"
.~, J
I'..
, ,
~' "
)".'
,~;.
.",'
. . <. ~ '
"
':'
1;,-"
.'
I,. '7
"
1 ',.
"
..,.
,.',
).
../,
.,'
.,{'.
<,
','
'..
~ ~ '.
, '
"
.' ~ ',.'
. ....'
, ,
-,""\ .
.'
,". .
1\'
,.v:
,,.
",; :.
"
¡",
. :"t.¡
'"
:",'\'
, . ~ '
"
, ,",
..'
,-,
¡.', , ,
\.'~
;i"
"
,',
" ,
...:-.
'"
ï,..
'"
,_~ 'T
, ,
"
1.:
"
,',
I.'.
"
t
"
" '¡.
, ,
'-
',1'
f ,;
\1 ...~ .
, '
"
_.'\1 ';.1,
, '
.
'. '
.,
',-.',..C'
. "
....
" ,~
" '
'"
,,'
,"
.".'
.;.,
J'"
,¡
,'r:
.,', ,
"":;"
,
\ ~, : ¡.
... ....
"
:('
, .
'", \
'.'" .
"
',"
'. ',{
_..,T,"
"
.'",'
r ,.>'......
....
"
, '
,"
. I _~ - .
"
..
~. .'.
."~ .
, ~.: l
, .
, ,
,: ,
'-',,'
" :
..
. ;1-
-',,-
:. ',"
,"
"
", j"
. ..'
.;
¡-', ';
, "
.> ;
..I
"
"
,.
"
.~ '
,~'>
. ,Co
,.,
"
. ,
, :'
~: .~.
.J
.',
'r-','
F·
.<'-
.,'1,
..
. "
.~,,\- .
.;. "
-;';.
.1 ."
~ -.'
',':
Ie.:. _ ~ '1
.~. '
.,.,~ . .
.. '
( :""
':{.
.' "
<.
.' ,~
,~' :."
','
" r'
'.-'
, '
"
.'
..;. ,
'.- '.
..,
'_I'
I'.
, "
-' "
",'
'"
',; ...
SEctIC)'N"ONE"
",. I
, ,
¡, .INT,RODuÇ,TION
. ~.'
',"'('-
, ,
f';
,',
" ".-
,-" :
'"
, ,
",oj;
, "
"
,...,." -,'
"I;
',-. I
" ,
, >
.. '-:
~! .
{":,
..
" '
,',
c,
i,_
~ 1
. '
.,....
'.
"
','
,,'
, I.~.·
" ,
, '
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION ONE -INTRODUCTION
1.1 CEQA Requirements
This document is the Initial StudyINegative Declaration on the potential environmental
effects of property acquisition for a proposed future elementary school and related
facilities. This document addresses only the environmental issues associated with the
property acquisition and any issues associated with construction of an elementary school
will be addressed in a future environmental document. The Norris School District (NSD)
will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines required the Lead Agency to prepare an Initial
Study to detennine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the
environment. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063 [c] of the
CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether
to prepare an EIR [Environmental Impact Report} or a Negative Declaration.
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative
Declaration.
(3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,
(B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would
not be significant, and
(D) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can
be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration
that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
This Initial StudyINegative Declaration has been prepared in response to the requirements
presented above. The proposed project consists of the purchase of approximately 14 acres
of land. The Initial Study examines the project impacts and identifies the appropriate type
of additional documentation that is required pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
1 - 1
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2 Prior Environmental Documents
There are no prior Initial Studies or Environmental Impact Reports for this project.
Referenced in this Study are the following reports:
·
Western Rosedale Specific Plan, September 12, 1994, Kern County Planning
Department.
·
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Western Rosedale Specific Plan,
September 1994, Kern County Planning Department.
·
Final Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan,
September 1989, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, Kern COG and Golden Empire
Transit.
·
Kern High School District Comprehensive Campus #6 Mitigated Negative
Declaration, September 2003, Kern High School District.
I, .'-
:1:'
1"'1' ...'
. . \
:I':~
; "
'-
. '
!;':I:":
"'1"""
'..' '
'¡.'
·:1
1:'''1- .
I ~' .:
,I,"
"1' ",
, '.
""
;',1."
, '
I"',
.,
,~I---:
,.·1';'
, .
',' ,
:1
", "
"
li',I'·
, . ,
.':';>"
'I·,·
. "
I I'
, " <',
-, :.,
;'·1····
'. ,
I'~I
'" ... ..,.
"
:,
",'
."
", -
,_'. r"l
",.'
,.-<
,,"',."
.<'J" (_:
..
'"
I, '
, '.
',,":'
..
,.
'.
" ,~
, "
--.'. .
" .
"
,
"
.'
, ,
','
.~.
j, : j
::. 'J:- ,; .
¡.,
j
~ '( ,
;,
, .
..
, ,
....
¡,
"i.'
. ~',
" .
, '
"
" ","
,.,z" l'
<,
.'" "';
',/. ;,,'
't,
"
"
"J
, .'
"
~.. "
.,'~. '"
~: .
'.
"
::'
"
-" ¡
r,
..
".
. ,~".,:"'~
. ,
..
",
"
'--(: ',)~
" .
"
. "
'..\.....
,.
" .,
"
"
¡'I·
."
. ,
,'.
"
':
- . -'-~
':,1'
. ),.
..
, ,.
.~.
..,',
','
, .
¡
, "
",
'.
. "
(',
, L
"
"
.,
, ,
"
"
, .
, ..
"
..' ,"
;.,', ,.; -
, .".
, ,
. ,
" ",.
, ..
"
"
..
, ".'
'.
"j,
I""-i' ..,
"(.
-.
__,J
,."<,,
. ~' .,",:''''
"
,
','""
'"
"
I'
.,"..
'.
.',
.r ',.\
.', ~
"",-
'/
..'.
'.t,
"
',.
".'
.;
,',
,',
",
" "
"
'""' .'
, .'
" '
, "
'....
, '
,,-' .
) 1-
',.
... ;,
I ",'
, , '
"
, "
-";"".
,
'/
'i <.-
". ..'I.
..' -
.':.
"
, '
I:'
. ,
of ;.
..
'",
>:-
~ '.
, '
:' ,..1
" ':;'
,,_.'
. t ~' "
. ,
'..\ .
,.'.
..'
, .
,'. "
,
", ,,'
, .
':.'r-: ,
"
,,'
"
" .
. ,
. "
,,'
"
, ,
"".'
.,
, .'
..,1
'.,
~ . j
, .,
. \'"
<'
"-~' ....
> ',',
"
,.,J:,
.',
,.
..(,
,,'
,..
"'.
. ,
"
:':
"
, . ." ~ .
[ ".'
.,
. ... "
,: r"
,,,' ~ "
, '
I. ~ f
.. ,
"
,'. '
..'
" '
....:..
: J
'-"
"
'';' ~."
',I
:.1.
,
~.'
:".
. ,
,:
"
"
, '
, "
"
. l' ~¡
, ,'~ '
.'
"
,"
. -, ~ .
"
.'
." -
~) "
';' ,
. ~. '
..
"
. -'I'
"
.,
\ <
'f':
..
...
~: .
" .
, ,
,':.
,~, .'
.J"
. r
','
-~ ..,,,.;..
, '
J'
" '
,. 'j
..
~ . ¡'
"
"
, ,
,,'
...
"
"
·c-'.:
"
.',
"
"
,',
"
.... ,
. -~.
'.
".
"
r'
'. ,
.~ ,
"
. \., "'~:
-".
, "
"
"
"
"
, .
"
I, ,\,
~" "',SECTI'Q,N,TWO
, .'
"
, ',>
.'.;
'I:::
L..,.'
, '
" ,
~' . .'
" I:.
C':, P~OJ,~CTDESCRIPTIO"N
.,
, ;.'
, .
,,'
'.
, "
"
",
~.
,~ .'.
"
"
"'
. '. i,"
".
"
, '0
"
.1',
, ~. .
> .
"
..,
'_.1
)... . ~ .
\'
--:'.-.
~, {
,"
.,
1 '
,...( ,
"
, .
"
~.. ", '
"..
,",
"
,I
.,<'
. "
, ~ ,
, .
>~I '.
~;<.. .
.'
t·,·', '
"
, ..
'.\
',J'
. , ~
,. ,
"
~!. ',;
':'
t,·:...· .
~ ".'"
,;,' > .
. .
"'¿¡
" .
"",
~ . ',/i~
,t"
.. '.
'J
. \. ',I
..'
'-
"
,>
. ",\
'-" "
"
\,
'':'
"
, ,>("
. ,
o
"
,.'
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION TWO - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The land acquisition involves 14 acres located approximately 2 miles north of the small
community of Rosedale in an incorporated area of Bakersfield, California. The project
area is generally bound by Allen Road to the west, Reina Road to the south, and Bese
Road to the east (see Figure 2-1).
As shown on the U.S. Geological Survey, the project location is in the southwest quarter
of Section 12, Township 29 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
The Assessor's Parcel Number is 462-022-18.
2.2 Project Description
The proposed project involves the acquisition of approximately 14 acres by the Norris
School District (District) for future use as an elementary school, bus barn, and related
facilities. This document is intended to address issues associated with the property
acquisition only and any issues associated with future construction will be addressed in a
separate environmental document as appropriate. The land is currently vacant and is
surrounded by residential subdivisions. The land is proposed to be purchased from the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno, California.
2.3 Environmental Setting
EARTH
The Bakersfield area is within the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The
Valley is located between the foothills of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast
Ranges on the west. Large, gently sloping alluvial (stream-deposited) fans cover the
eastern side of the Valley and were formed by rivers, which flow in a westerly direction
from the Sierra Nevada.
The project site is within the alluvial terraces in the eastern part of the San Joaquin
Valley. The site is relatively flat topography with property boundaries matching surface
elevations of adjoining roads and properties. Elevation (Above Mean Sea Level) is
approximately 365 feet. The site is currently vacant, unimproved land.
AIR QUALITY
The project lies within the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
(SN Air Basin). The air quality of the Valley is directly related to the ability of the
atmosphere to dilute and transport pollutants. However, the climate and meteorology
within the Valley are conducive to the creation and entrapment of air pollution. Air
pollution within the Valley is, in part, a result of the enclosed· air basins, which
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
2-1
+
Quad Knopf
Vicinity Map
Figure
2 - 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
ffiffiE
lli±Hf
- EttEEEE
~. Ir~J
] I
II I I I
, I 1 I . '
--_____1 L--------Lelíve-e(~-1----- _________
~ l.~_r- Ex;sti"JS;te
I'~..~-i.llnm rTillT,.:;{t,TTfLffiLmm]JI
r~jjm]j CILTn-r~'T~ - II
lihrrnm (-fT[~ '
Acquisition Site ~
. ------
I~
rJ
.!!2 ' I Q)
~ 1m
-----~ L____m________________,..._______.__~_~J__.________.______.____. _______
--~---II---~;naRd-------ln- _ 1-~~Su
I I I~ ~ -
I ~_J__ fL~-¡ lJ
"0
ex:
c
Legend
500
1,000
I I
~L_--J--L__Ll___c
~~.-~ tm~~~1t~ffi~ r
_ 4 r~ t:t-= w_UJJlluTILTJ1IJ I
::=J l_d R=1 [T,T .
=J (--r-r- -.t.,-, )-, ,_ H- _,_
:~ H-+-ul/7Zr:"-E lJlJJ .L<.--.--. -~~
-' UUJ . 11.JYtf; -1 tfæd]Tr""'-4'-1 C
~ ffiTì-;-7:f1i" -LLf-ii.¡ -, 1~¡-t~J ~-
__, .ir--.L¡-r-,." '. IlJLj c
r- 1 11'- - 111""__
--._-----
D Project Site
",
o'
t
F...
.''\, //." '\
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
2-2
I
I
I
experience long periods of inversion, a relatively light wind flow and a generous amount
of sunlight. The SJV Air Basin is comprised of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and central and western Kern. The Basin
periodically exceeds State and/or federal standards for levels of ozone and fine
particulate matter (see Table 2-1).
I
I
Table 2-1
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ozone, Carbon Monoxide and PM10
Pollutant Averaging California Standards I National Standards I
Time
Concen- Method 4 Primary 3, Secondary Method 4,7
tration 3 s 3,6
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm Same as Ethylene
(180 Photometry (235 Primary Chemilumi-
ug/m3) ug/m3) Standard nescence
Carbon 8 Hour 9.0 ppm Non- 9ppm Non-
Monoxide (10 mg/m3) dispersive (10 dispersive
Infrared mg/m3) Infrafred
I Hour 20 ppm Spectroscopy 35 ppm Spectroscopy
(23 mg/m3) (NDIR) (40 ub/m3) (NDIR)
Suspended Annual 30 ug/m3 Size Selective
Particulate Geometric Inlet High
Matter Mean Volume
(PM 10) 24 Hour 50 ug/m3 Sampler
And
Gravimetric 150 ug/m3 Same as --Inertial
Analysis Primary Separation and
Standard Gravimetric
Annual 50 ub/m3 Analysis
Arithmetic
Men
NOTES: I) California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter - PMJO, are values that are not to be
exceeded,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be
exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one,
3) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgáed, Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based
upon a reference temperature of25 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013,2 millibar); ppm in this
table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollution per mole of gas.
4) Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent
results at or near the level of the air qual ity standard may be used,
5) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate marginof safety, to protect the
public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation
plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
6) National Secondary Standards: The levels of ar quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollution. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time"
after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA.
7) Reference method as described by the EPA, An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a
"consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EP A.
SOURCE: Stale of California, Air Resources Board.
I
I
I
I
I
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
2-3
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
2-4
II
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The San Joaquin Valley's PMIO problem is caused by the same emissions which cause
ozone concentrations: ROG and NOx. In addition, PMIO concentrations are the result of
other human activities, including agricultural operations, industrial processes,
combustion of fossil fuels, construction and demolition, and diversion of road dust into
the air. Natural sources ofPMIO include windblown dust and wildfires.
The SJV Air Basin had one of the most severe air pollution problems in the State of
California and the nation and is a extreme nonattainment area. Air pollution is hazardous
to health, diminishes the production and quality of many agricultural crops, reduces
visibility, degrades or soils materials, and damages native vegetation.
The existing air quality in the project vicinity can be described by ambient air quality
data at the nearest SJV Air Basin air monitoring station, _ which is located in Bakersfield.
Table 2-2 contains a summary of the number of days that air quality exceeded the federal
and state standards for PMLO and ozone from 1994 through 2002, the nine most recent
years for which annual data have been published by the California Air Resources Board.
Table 2-2
Ambient Air Quality Summary
Bakersfield Monitoring Station
Days Exceeding State Standards
Pollutant 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Ozone 27 59 66 14 29 44 41 46 28
PMIO 79 130 120 49 45 21 54 141 174
Days Exceeding National Standards
Pollutant 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Ozone 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0
PMIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
WA TER RESOURCES
Mean annual precipitation in the Bakersfield area is approximately seven inches per year.
Rainfalls are concentrated predominantly during the 6 months from November through
April.
Flooding within the Bakersfield area originates from the Kern River watershed and the
Caliente Creek stream group which drain the west slopes of the Tehachapi mountains.
Some smaller areas are subject to flooding from localized watersheds. The most severe
flooding problems on the Kern River near Bakersfield have resulted from November
through April high-intensity winter rainstorms over a large portion of the basin.
Snowmelt-related flooding, which usually occurs in late spring and early summer, rarely
has caused significant damage due to the longer period of runoff and lower peaks. The
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
project site is outside the 100-200 and 500-year flood plains (see Figure 2-2). There are
no natural streams within the site vicinity.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The natural vegetation communities of the southern San Joaquin Valley historically
supported a diverse assemblage of plant and animal species. The conversion of native
and naturalized plant communities by agricultural development, road construction, dam
construction, and urbanization has significantly reduced available wildlife and plant
habitat. As a result of this conversion, several species of both plants and animals have
been extirpated from the southern San Joaquin Valley, and populations of other species
have declined significantly. As a result, and as directed by state and federal legislation,
the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service have listed many southern San Joaquin Valley species as threatened, endangered,
or as candidates for state or federal listing.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Southern Valley Yokuts were early inhabitants of the Bakersfield area and had a
mixed economy based primarily on fish, waterfowl, shellfish, roots, and seeds. Due to an
abundance of resources, the Yokuts developed a culture of comparatively great material
wealth and tended to live in large, more permanent settlements. The Yowlumne, a sub-
tribe of the Southern Valley Yokuts, occupied the territory around Kern Island (now
Bakersfield) before the arrival of European settlers.
UTILITIES
While no additional utilities are required for the property acquisition, the District intends
to connect the future school to the City of Bakersfield's sewer system main trunkline.
Also, existing infrastructure provided by the City will be used by the District. The water
service will be provided by the local water service provider.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snow Rd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure I
2-2
I
August 2004
2-6 I
7th Standard Rd,
Olive Dr.
An area inundated by 100 yr, flooding, for
which no BFE's have been established,
An area that is determined to be outside
the 100 ànd 500 yr, floodplains,
A
c=JX
lIB X500 An area inundated by 500 yr, flooding; an
. area inundated by 100 yr. flooding with
average depths of less than 1 fo01 or with
drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or
an area protected by levees from 100 yr.
,"000' t
o
2,000 4,000
Feet
8,000
~
Quad Knopf
FEMA Flood Zones
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
,: ,~;,
'I' :':;:
" '
¡,
,1<
""-
~.- '
,I'"
" ~
'I
..; (
J" .
.;"
e "
"
..
I,'
"
, ,
,I:
'.. ,,'
\" : ~,
:,1', '
, ,
, ,
"I','
, ,
.'
, I:' ';'..
'I'
~ . \
,'-
'.,
I:
. .
.~ ,.J
":",
'J--,
',.-"
-,' ,\
".
.j
)" '.
.'" .:.\.'
,.),
, , . ~¡ .
" ,
.' Y - ~.
"',,
'"
"
t···
~ '.
-'
"
, ,,,',,, '\-'
,-'
~ ",
.-t·
, .
.'
'.,'
"
"
, ,
" _ u'
.-.~ "
" ,,'
'I"',
'. .',
,".
"1,:"
-"
"I',:'
, ,
, h'
"I": "
. . ~',
" ".'
- ,
;' ,,/-
-I:"
"(..'
'1:',
- " '.
",I·,,·
. '
·1·
"
:.< ;'< "
~~ ,.
,"
, I . ~
Co
, ,
. '.:'
. .,'.'
"'j
"
"
, .
"
.':, .
"
;
, "
",
'.
.",,\
"
, ,
. '
,f....
,. ,.~ ',.---,
"
"
. ,
"
," ,
".;.
,.;' "
'. 'J >-.
, ~
~ '.;-
....
. .f...·
..
.... T,. ."
,.
" .~.
j.''''
" '
..
"
.;
" ,
,.'
~....;, -
"
,:
~, d
!.....
.'
: .::
" .
", . ~
"
,I
"
"
.'
"
./
" '.
" ,,"
,',
..,', I'
. ~:
,.
',\'
..
';:' .-"
¡....
'1,'
',r.
"
..'{
"
,',
;'--',
.
'.'~' "
.,
;-; "",' ,-..;
"
"
, "
,',
..
··i
'.-', ..
"
..
-~ ('
..~ -
'.', <;...'....
" :
,'.
;,
y
c,
"
~ "
., '
"
.~ ,
....!..
"
>.,
'.,' :'
, ,
"
J'"
I: :'
,..,.-",
,
,
..
. '
"
," '
~ ,>
-
'À
"
. ,
, "
. : ~ 1 ' .
~,' -
0,
"
",
. ~" ~ ',~: ~
.'
"
, I~,
(
'~
.. ,
"'_ f ~ .
','-:
.,l;'
::~. .
','.
. , ~
. ~, .
"
-..
~ .',
",
"
..~ ',-
" \..
~- " .
'\,
\,,'
, ,
" I
!.,,-
'. ¡".'
.,
<.,
.','
. ,
, "
,.-. , ~
',','
. : ~
I',t.'
','
'"
. ,
,~ .
,',
. ','
r ~ ,',
,"',.1
, ~,'
,-'.'
"
r,'
'-'
, .
..,.;
,.....
~,
'.'
.
.~, "..'
- .,~ .
, '
"
"
~ .;~'
" ~ ,.
.......
. ) ", ' ~'.
",', .
, "
"1· .
..
, .
;.
"
T~. .
, ,~ '
,C
.r"'
"
"'
.',
, '.
"
. ,',
,I".
"
. 'f ,
r......
..
..
:'. I
, . ~.
,',';
'.
I,
.~' ,
"
. ,:
~,
\'
".
"
.,
~. ~,
, .
;"'
, ,
..
..
" :
'...'.
,1',
"
...(
,'.
/.
.,
.'" -,
-'.'
.. ,',I'.
.,
ì;"
. ~,"
':'-\...
-,
. "
. "
\, «,'
. .'
" ,,~
:"
, ,
.'
.
,,:.
, ~ ,/ :
"
"
"
,',
'"
..
. ~t
, .,'
,,'
."
SE,CTIQN'THRËE ::
.," ,
. , ~
".i.,' ,', ,.,~,VALµ~!I,ON OF:'
:~NVIRQNMe:NiTALIMP A crs,..
. ,'. ' , ".: . " ~, . -. . - ',' . .
,"
,.
I':
, '
" ..
. "
. ~ "
. ,
,,'
'.
, "
. "
"
, .
,.'
, .
.
"
'.
"I'..
, .
'j 't,..
.,',
. ",...
"
"
".
~
"
','
. -',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION THREE - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
3.1 Environmental Checklist and Discussion
1. Project title:
Norris Elementary School Property Acquisition
2. Lead agency name and address:
Norris School District
6940 Calloway Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93312
3. Contact person and phone number:
Wallace E. McCormick, Ph.D.
(661) 387-7000
4. Project location:
USGS Rosedale Quadrangle, Section 12, Range 26 East,
Township 29 South, Bakersfield, California
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Norris School District
6940 Calloway Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93312
6. General plan designation:
Suburban Residential (4 DU/acre) as per Western Rosedale
. Specific Plan
7. Zoning:
Suburban Residential
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but
not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or
off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets
if necessary.)
The project is the acquisition of approximately 14 acres by the
Norris School District for future use as an elementary school
site, bus barn, and related facilities.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's
surroundings:
See text of Initial Study
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-1
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-2
II
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10 Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., pennits, financing
approval, or participation agreement.)
· California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region
· California Department of Health Services
· Department of State Architect
· Office of Public School Construction
· City of Bakersfield Permitting
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water Quality 0 Land Use / Planning
Materials
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 T ransportationff raffic
0 Utilities / Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1:8:1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MA Y have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~
41'
Prepared by:
--
Stephen Peck
Senior Environmental Planner
Quad Knopf, Inc.
r//)-/l>1
Date
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-3
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-4
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ImDact IncorDoration ImDact ImDact
3.1.1 Aesthetics -
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 [8J
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [8J
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c} Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 [g]
character or quality of the . site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 [g]
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Response:
Scenic Vista and Resources (a, b, c, d): The site is
located on flat ground that has been previously graded. No
known aesthetic resources exist on the site, and it is not
within any city or county-identified scenic vista. The site
is currently a vacant lot and bounded by residential
development.
Conclusion: The project will have no impact on scenic
resources.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorcoration
Less Than
Significant
Imeact
No
Imeact
3.1.2 Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
o
o
rg¡
o
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
o
o
o
cgJ
c)
Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
rg¡
Response:
Prime Farmland (a): The USDA Soil Conservation
Service soil survey shows the site consists of two soil
types: Milham sandy loam and Wasco sandy loam, both of
which are classified as prime agricultural soils. The project
site, however, is substantially surrounded by urban
development, is planned for non-agricultural uses, and is
not feasible to farm in an economic scale. The project site
therefore is not considered "prime farmland".
Conclusion: Acquisition of the site will not result in the
loss of Prime Farmland.
Zoning (b): The site is zoned as Suburban Residential.
Conclusion: School sites are permitted with a conditional
use permit in this zone.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-5
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-6
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Agricultural PreservelWiIliamson Act (b): The project
site is not in an area designated as an Agricultural Preserve
by the County of Kern. The land is not involved in a
Williamson Act contract with Kern County.
Conclusion: There is no impact.
Farmland Conversion (c): Lands to the north, west and
east consist of housing developments.
Conclusion: Since there are no adjacent agricuIturallands,
there will be no impact.
Pesticide Use: There will be restrictions in the use of
pesticides on surrounding farm lands to the south.
Conclusion: The Kern County Department of Agriculture
is responsible for the enforcement of regulations on the use
of pesticides in Kern County. The use of pesticides is
regulated, in part, by buffer zones that restrict the use of
certain pesticides around sensitive sites.
Mitigation Measure Pesticide Use: The Kern County
Department of Agriculture will enforce the following
measures:
· Restricted Materials - Restricted materials shall not be
applied by air within one-fourth mile of the future
campus site.
· Cotton Defoliants - Folex and Paraquat applications
shall not be made within one-eighth mile of the future
campus site. DET of Folex applications shall not be
made with one-half mile of the campus site when
school is in session or due to be in session within 24
hours.
· Metam Sodium -'Sprinkler irrigation applications shall
be prohibited within one-half mile of the future campus
site.
· Methyl Bromide and Chloropicrin - The buffer zone
could vary depending on many factors with the
maximum distance being 3,850 feet.
I
, I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Effectiveness of Measures: Implementation of these
measures will protect the students and staff from potentially
harmful pesticides.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-7
3.1.3 Air Quality
Response:
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management of air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is no-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I I
Less Than
Significant No
ImDact ImDact
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
Air Quality Plans (a, b, c): The project will not exceed
the Small Project Analysis Level (SP AL) established by the
Air District. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the
SlV Air Pollution Control District's air quality plan or
violate any air quality standards.
Conclusion: The project will not adversely effect the SlV
Air Pollution Control District. Air quality issues associated
with the future campus project will be addressed in it's
applicable environmental document.
Substantial Pollutant Concentrations or Odors (d, e):
Acquisition of the land will not generate substantial
pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors.
Conclusion: No impacts will result.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.4 Biological Resources -
Would the project:
Response:
a}
b)
c}
d)
e)
f)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U,S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
IncorDoration
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
ImDsct
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
ImDsct
r2J
r2J
r8J
r2J
r2J
r2J
Sensitive or Special Status Species (a, b, c): The project
site consists of flat, graded land with no vegetation.
Further, the site is surrounded by urban development and it
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3-9
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 10
I
I
II
I
I
I'
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
is unlikely to foster any habitat for most animal species,
particularly sensitive or special species.
Conclusion: No significant impact would occur.
Riparian Habitat/Wetlands (b, c): There are no riparian
habitat or wetlands on or adjacent to the project site.
Conclusion: No significant impact would occur.
Wildlife Corridors/Protected Biological Resources (d,
e): The site is not within a known wildlife corridor nor is it
a protected biological resource area.
Conclusion: No significant impact would occur.
Habitat Conservation Plan (I): The site is within the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP).
Conclusion: The Norris School District will participate in
the MBHCP and this is a less than significant impact.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
less Than
Potentially Significant less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ImDact IncorDoration Imoact ImDact
3.1.5 Cultural Resources -
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in D D D ~
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064,5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in D D D ~
the significance of an archaeolog ical
resource pursuant to §15064385?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D D D ~
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including D D D ~
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Response:
Cultural Resources (a, b, c, d): When future
construction occurs, there could be disturbances or
destruction of currently unknown cultural or historic
resources on site. The project will not involve
construction.
Conclusion: There is no impact.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -11
3.1.6 Geology/Soils-
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving?
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42,
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction,
iv) Landslides
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
8e located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction of
collapse?
8e located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building
code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
IncorDoration
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
Less Than
Significant
ImDact
(8J
(8J
(8J
o
(8J
(8J
(8J
No
ImDact
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
o
o
o
(8J
D
o
o
Seismic Conditions (a): According to Section 2.2.8 of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan EIR, no
known active fault underlays the project site. Several
active faults in the Bakersfield and Kern County area are
known to be active, including the San Andreas, Garlock,
White Wolf and Breckenridge/ Kern Canyon Fault.
Response:
Conclusion: The probability of surface fault ruptures
within the vicinity of the site is slight as the project site is
not situated on any major fault system. A greater seismic
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
concern is strong ground shaking which can potentially
result in damage to structures, roads and walkways and
underground infrastructure. The site is Uniform Building
Code Seismic Risk Zone 4, which indicates proximity to
major faults and potential for major damage. A Magnitude
8.25 earthquake on the San Andreas fault is estimated as
the maximum earthquake that could affect the project. The
impact is less than significant.
Soil Stability (b, c, d): According to the 2010 General
Plan, the site is not located in an area subject to
liquefaction, landslide or substantial soil erosion
conditions, but is within a designated land subsidence area.
Land subsidence may result from natural processes or the
consequences of human activities. Wherever the
supporting subsurface material is altered or removed, the
ground surface may subside. The process may be
destructive whether it occurs immediately or slowly over a
period of time.
The V.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service classified the
Milham soil as having a low shrink-swell potential.
Conclusion: No significant impact will occur as a result of
the land acquisition.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -13
3.1.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials-
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safely hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
IncorDoration
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
ImDact ImDact
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
D r2J
D r2J
D r2J
D r2J
r2J D
r2J D
D r2J
D r2J
August 2004
3 - 14
I
I.
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response:
Hazards (a, b, c, d): Section 21151.8 of State Public
Resources Code states that the School District Board of
Trustees shall not approve a negative declaration for the
acquisition of a school site or the construction of new
school facilities unless the document includes the
following three determinations:
1. The proposed site is not a current or former hazardous
waste or solid waste site according to the following
databases:
· Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A) (http://www.epa.gov)
· Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)
(http://www .epa.gov/ envirolhtml/cerclis/
cerclis _query .html)
· National Priority List (NPL)
(http://www .epa. gov / superfund/siteslnpl
/ca.htm)
· Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) (http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/)
2. The site is not a hazardous release site as identified by
the State Department of Health Services.
(http://www.dhs.ca.gov/)
3. There are no underground or aboveground pipelines
that carry hazardous materials across the site. A high
pressure gas line is located along Reina Road to the
south of the site. California Code of Regulations Title
5, Section 14010 (h) states that schools shall not be
placed within 1,500 feet of the pipeline. The
preliminary site design for the project places all
academic and administrative buildings outside of the
1,500 foot buffer zone. However, the proposed athletic
fields and bus barn facility will be located within the
buffer zone. The gas line located along Reina Road is
the same gas line that is located within the 1,500 foot
buffer zone of the Kern High School District
Comprehensive Campus #6, located approximately 1/3
of a mile west of the proposed campus site. The gas
line at the high school site is located approximately
1,310 feet from the property line. Soils Engineering,
Inc. prepared a Geological Hazard Study for the high
school site located at the corner of Kratzmeyer Road
and Allen Road in August of 2003. The report
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -15
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 16
II
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
analyzed the potential impacts associated with
hypothetical worst-case accidental releases from the
, gas line. The results of the risk analysis indicated that
the individual risk and societal risks at the site
associated with potential releases from the gas line are
insignificant. The State Fire Marshal, Chuck
McDonald, also reported that no reports of pipeline
leaks are known near the site. Based upon the results of
the inspection, it was determined that no sources exist
as described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15186.
Conclusion: The project will not have an adverse impact
associated with hazardous materials.
Airports (e, I): The school site is outside the Bakersfield
Air Park Influence Area and is therefore compatible with
the Air Park's Land Use Plan. The nearest airstrip is owned
and operated by the Kern Mosquito and Vector Control
District. This air field is located approximately one mile
southwest of the project site.
Conclusion: Location of the project within one mile of an
existing airstrip will not significantly impact the use of this
site for a new elementary school. The Kern County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that regulates the
land uses around various public use airports located in
Kern County shows 16 public airports covered by this plan,
two of which are located in the Bakersfield Metropolitan
area. As this report shows, the proposed elementary school
is not within the comprehensive land use plan boundaries
of either airport.
The Kern Mosquito Abatement District is not a public use
airport and is, therefore, not subject to the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan Regulations. Commuter Flight
tracks for the airport will not impact the school district.
Further, the California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics was consulted for the Kern High
School District Comprehensive Campus #6, located
approximately 1/3 mile west of the proposed campus site.
The analysis consisted of a review of the Kern County
Mosquito and Vector Control (KMVCD) airport
operations, approach/departure flight paterns and flying
policy, the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook (Handbook), and other publications relating to
aircraft operations at the Kern Mosquito and Vector
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Control Airport. Also conducted was a flight and ground
inspection ofthe site on March 8, 2004.
The airport is classified as an agricultural use airport
(closed to the public) and is exempt from the Department's
airport permit process. The Handbook describes this
runway as a low-activity General Aviation Runway. The
runway length is 1,800 feet; has less than 2,000 takeoffs
and landings per year, has only one turbine powered
agricultural aircraft, and not instrument approach
procedures. KMVCD has a policy of approaching and
departing the runway to the northwest and arriving from
the northwest, which totally avoids any over flight of the
proposed school site. Furthermore, the proposed site is
located outside all Handbook safety compatibility zones.
The investigation did not reveal any condition that would
create an undue hazard. Therefore, there was no objection
to the school district's acquisition of this site. Based upon
the evaluation of existing conditions and planned
development, the site was considered to provide the level
of safety suitable for a school site. Therefore, the impact is
less than significant.
Emergency Response Plan (g): The project will not alter
any county or city emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
Conclusion: The project will not have a significant impact
on emergency plans.
Wildland Fires (h): Grasslands do not exist in the site
vicinity. Surrounding lands are either vacant or are
housing developments.
Conclusion: There is no danger of wildland fires within
the project vicinity.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -17
3.1.8 HydrologylWater Quality-
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e,g" the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
IncorDoration
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
ImDact ImDact
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D ~
D ~.
D ~
D ~
D ~
D ~
o ~
o ~
August 2004
3 -18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i)
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
ImDact IncorDoration ~ ImDact
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving 0 0 0 [g]
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 [g]
j)
Response:
Water Quality (a, I): The proposed land acquisition will
not result in any adverse effects to water quality. However,
any affects associated with the future construction of the
campus will be addressed in future environmental reports.
Conclusion: No impact on water quality will occur.
Groundwater (b): The site is currently a vacant lot and is
not enrolled in an agricultural program. The new elementary
. school will receive their water from the local water service
company and the source will remain groundwater.
Conclusion: The impact on groundwater will be less than
significant, as the amount of groundwater used for urban
development, including educational facilities, is comparable
to intensive agricultural land, and there will be no
measurable impact on groundwater supplies.
Stream or River (c): The site is not near a river stream or
drainage area and will not hãve an impact on existing
drainage patterns.
Conclusion: There will be no impact on any stream or
n ver.
Drainage Pattern (d, e): Issues associated with storm
water runoff will be addressed in future environmental
documents associated with the construction of the
elementary school.
Conclusion: The drainage related impacts are less than
significant.
Flood Hazard (g, h): The Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map shows that the site is
not within a 1 DO-year flood hazard zone.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 -19
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusion: No flood hazard impact will occur.
Dam Failure Inundation (i): The Safety Element of the
2010 General Plan shows the site together with most of
Bakersfield urban area as being within the Isabella Dam
Failure Inundation Area. The Safety Element indicates that
flood could reach up to 30 feet with velocities of 2 to 5 feet
per second, and would reach the proposed campus site in
approximately 8 hours after the dam failure.
Conclusion: )'he City of Bakersfield has adopted a Flood
Evacuation Plan to provide for the protection of life and
property through evacuation of areas that would be
inundated.
Seicheffsunami/Mudflows ü): There is no potential for
Seiche or tsunami due to the lack of a significant water body
near the site. The site is flat, therefore eliminating the
possibility for a mudflow.
Conclusion: There will be no impact.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ImDact Incorcoration ImDact ImDact
3.1.9 Land Use/Planning -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ~
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific 0 0 0 ~
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ~
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Response:
Community Development (a): The proposed land to be
acquired by Norris School District is located north of Reina
Road between Allen Road and Bese Road. The land is
surrounded by residential development and is zoned as
Suburban Residential (SR).
Conclusion: Locating the school at this site will not
impede the orderly growth and development in the
northwestern Bakersfield area.
General Plan/Zoning (b): The Western Rosedale Specific
Plan Land Use Element shows the site is designated as
Suburban Residential (SR).
In compliance with the Western Rosedale Specific Plan
Land Use Element, the Kern County Department of
Planning and Development has zoned the site Suburban
Residential (SR). Although the 14 acre parcel is considered
to have prime agriculture soil, the site is not conducive to
practical farming use. The site is surrounded by newly
established housing developments adjacent to the proposed
14 acre site.
Conclusion: As educational institutions can, subject to an
approved conditional use permit, be located within an SR
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 21
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
District; the proposed project would not conflict with
existing General Plan or zoning regulations. The impact
would be less than significant.
Habitat Conservation Plan (c): The project site is located
within Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP).
Conclusion: The District will participate in the MBHCP.
The impact is less than significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
~ Incorooration Imeact Imeact
3.1.10 Mineral Resources -
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 k8J
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource 0 0 0 k8J
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Response:
Mineral Resources (a, b): According to the Western
Rosedale Specific Plan EIR, the site is not on or adjacent to
an active oil field or a sand and gravel mining operation.
Conclusion: The project will not adversely impact existing
mineral resources.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 23
3.1.11 Noise-
Response:
Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c)
A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e)
For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incoreoration
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Imeact
I
I,
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
No
Imeact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Increased Noise Levels (a, c, d): There is no noise or
groundbourne vibration impact associated with acquisition
of the land. Noise analysis will be included III
environmental documents associated with future
construction projects on site.
Conclusion: There is no impact.
Airport/Private Airstrip (e), (I): The proposed site is not
located within any area subject to the land restrictions of
the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which
covers all of Kern County. The site is located within one
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mile of a private airstrip. This airstrip is used primarily for
occasional crop dusting. The direction of the runway will
not result in direct over flights over or near the school site.
See Section 3.1. 7 (Hazards).
Conclusion: No adverse impact will occur.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 25
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Significant No
ImDact IncorDoration ImDact ImDact
3.1.12 Population and Housing -
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by D D D ~
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ~
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D ~
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Response:
Population Growth (a): Acquisition of the land and
future development of the new elementary school is in
response to the existing and proposed increased growth in
northwest Bakersfield.
Conclusion: The Western Rosedale Specific Plan
recognized that growth and development are inevitable.
The construction and operation of a new elementary school
in northwest Bakersfield will encourage growth and
development in accordance with the 2010 General Plan
and the Western Rosedale Specific Plan and is not
considered to represent a potentially significant growth-
inducing effect.
Housing (b, c): There are no dwellings on the proposed
project site.
Conclusion: There will be no displacement of housing
units, and therefore no housing-related impacts.
, I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
3.1.13 Public Services -
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impact, in order
to maintain acceptable serviëe ratios for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
o
o
o
o
o
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
I ncorooration
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Imeact
~
~
o
o
o
No
Imeact
o
o
~
~
~
Fire Protection Services: There are 12 fire stations
located within the City of Bakersfield. However, in
combination, the City and County maintain a total of 24
stations in the metropolitan area. Currently each station is
responsible for a first-in response area of approximately 9
square miles. Fire suppression support for this area would
come from Kern County Fire Station #65 located on
Rosedale Highway just east of Calloway Drive.
Response:
Various agreements have been adopted between the Kern
County Fire Department and the City of Bakersfield Fire
Department. They generally facilitate the following:
· Closest station response concept
· Dual agency training facility
· Emergency radio communication between both
agencIes
These agencies have also adopted non-overlapping and
contiguous station response boundaries within the
Bakersfield metropolitan area. With the automatic aid
agreement, each fire station has the primary responsibility
for its individual area and emergency services are provided
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 27
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 28
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
without regard to City limits. Within the urbanized
Bakersfield area, fire stations are generally located within a
2.5 mile driving distance. The driving distance from
County Fire Station #65 is approximately four miles.
An approved water supply system capable of supplying
required fire flow for fire protection purposes is to be
provided to all portions of the site where future buildings
are to be located. These issues will be addressed in the
environmental document associated with the future
construction. The establishment of gallons-per-minute
requirements for fire flow shall be based on the Guide for
Determination of Required Fire Flow, published by the
Insurance Service Office.
Fire hydrants will also be located and installed per the
Bakersfield City Fire Department. On-site fire hydrants
shall be provided when any portion of the building
protected is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a
public street.
Conclusion: Working with the City and County. fire
departments and with the California Water Service
Company, the NSD will install tile required infrastructure
to meet water supply demands for municipal fire protection
services. These measures will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Police Protection Services: The Bakersfield Police
Department operates out of a central headquarter located at
1601 Truxton A venue. As the population and geographic
area of the City increases, the demand for police services
will similarly increase. The number of law enforcement
officers and patrol cars, which presently serve the project
vicinity, varies according to shift and time of day. The
Police Department's current ratio of police officers to
population is 1.3 officers per 1,000 population. This ratio
has remained fairly constant over the past 10 years.
Future development of a new elementary school campus
will result in the need for additional police services. The
project, together with the planned urban development in
northwest Bakersfield, will result in increased law
enforcement-related call to the project vicinity. These
issues will be addressed accordingly.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusion: The project effects will not require the
construction of new police facilities, or the physical
alteration of the existing facility.
Conclusion: The land acquisition will not have any
adverse impact on either the City or County Parks. There
may be some beneficial effects to having the new future
elementary school in the northwest Bakersfield area as the
site can be used to meet some of the activities currently
held at nearby parks.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 29
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
D
D
D
[gJ
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorcoration
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.1.14 Recreation -
Would the project:
b)
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
D
D
D
[gJ
Response:
Recreational Facilities (a, b): As described in Section
3.1.13, there are several parks in northwest Bakersfield.
Conclusion: As a matter of policy, the NSD has made its
school campuses available to the community for
recreational use. Development of these new school
facilities is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on
meeting recreational needs in the northwest Bakersfield
area.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.15 Transportation/Traffic -
Response:
Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections?
b)
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e,g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e,g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?)
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorooration
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
(8J
o
o
[8J
[8J
Traffic (a, b): The land acquisition will not generate any
additional traffic. Analysis of traffic impacts will be
included In environmental documents associated with
future construction on the site.
Conclusion: No impact will occur.
Air Traffic Patterns (c): The proposed project site is
located approximately 1 mile northeast of a small
commercial air strip. Locating a new elementary school at
this site will not result in a change of air traffic patterns.
See Section 3.1.7 (Hazards).
Conclusion: No environmental impact will result.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 31
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 32
I
.'
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Hazards (d): Land acquisition and development
of the new elementary school will be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
Conclusion: No environmental impact will result.
Emergency Access/Parking Capacity (e, t): The site will
have adequate access for emergency traffic and any
impacts associated with parking capacity will be addressed
in environmental documents associated with future
construction projects located on the site.
Conclusion: No environmental impact will result.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.16 Utilities/Service Systems -
Response:
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facifities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
Less Than
Significant
Wrth Mitigation
Incorooration
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
ImDact
D
D
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
D
No
fmDact
[gJ
[gJ
D
D
D
D
[gJ
Wastewater (a, b, c, d, e, f, g): The land acquisition will
not induce any adverse impacts to utilities or service
systems. However, further impacts will be analyzed in
environmental documentation associated with future
construction projects on the site.
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 33
3.2 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a)
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or elíminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually límited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)
Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Imeact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incoreoration
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Less Than
Significant
Imeact
No
Imeact
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
[8J
o
The proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or disturb
paleontological resources or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed Project is consistent with long-range plans
for the community and would not be inconsistent with
existing environmental plans. The Project would not
contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions,
or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in
population could lead to an increase need for housing,
increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.
Response:
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
August 2004
3 - 34
, '.';
l'i
, I
., ".,
"I:,
I ",,'
' :,
.~ . . . .:'
'·1 "
:-1:'
. . ~" e .'.
:1····
.~ ' ~.
'A'
I", ,
:,"
,
;1,
.." .,.,'
I·· .....,
. 1',;.-
~ " ,
. . , .
'1:·':" "
,'-,
I'
"
. ~.,
'.,'.,
.'
'.
'I:
I,'
;'
~" 1
"
I"
'c
:.1,"
., .
, ,
·1" '"",,'
'.~ - . '.' ,
I"
, "
I:'
.. -:
,:1: .. ..
, "
..
'.
....:.
«'"
. ; t '~
~'.I""""
, ~.' ,.
"
, .
:.~ ~~
.','.-
.':'
~ :.
'"
\, \'
, .
.,
~~ .
.,
,"
. '.
"
"::
" ,
ft'
«
'.,
, .'
'.
:-1'
'f "
\¡ t
"
.',
? '.
'.....'J..
. ,
",
, ,
. ,'~ ' ,"-
"
.'
,'.
. ~ '
,\. '
..
.,
'r',
, .,.;.
-J-\:
, .
~. ", ....
,',
:f
>.
H,'
:1'
"
"
-
C"
"
, .
'; "
':f:
, .
-'--'-
. ,
"
, ",'
" ,
, ,
" ',,',
',', ,ì.
. '.
.,
'''',
"
, j'.
. .
, '."
r', '
,'J
".
~'<
. ,
,,-
'"
>,
'.'
., ,
, ,
"
"
, ,
- , ' -.' ~ 1"
,'<,,\ :./
'.-,
,,,'
/ ;.,
',.
. \~. ~'"
'.
, .
"
.',
, ,
f,"
. ..
(
"
. ~ ..
','
"
. .
~' ,-
1';·
..~
, "
.f ~ <
"
'·r
''"
\' .
" .
~ ''¿'
"
.',--~
"
,
"
r .'
.','"
" -' :'('.
., "
l'. "",
..,
, ,
"
I,.,
.'"
;,-
:\.
. "
'.'
",.
, .
. ;
'.,
.'....
. " ~ .
,)',
, ~, ,
'C
'-
, ~:
'"
.'
, "
"
.
"
",. ,J
,'.-
::'.: "
.,
.,'
"
'.
'.
. .
,,''.
. ,
~ ~
. /
;~ ;
:'r ;
.,..
"
"
-
"'.,
,.1'.
/ .
;;.
.'
"
'.,
. ' '.' . " .
,Sì:CTION'·:F.OUR,·
~ .
,;
"
"
:-¡
,',
LIST:;OF:PERSONS"THAT ,PREPARED;'
;:.::' i ,n'uTíA'I..:S,TLJPY ,'NEGATI'V'E"DEÒ:LÄRA110N'
. ,":.,
"
"
: '
" . ',' ~ ~'
I.'..
',' '
'. ,:
'.,.. >
I,
., .
'. '~
,t. .
,'-.' .
..,
.,
. ',.
" '
,"
, '
....,..
. ,
.,"_1'
. I' ~ '
"
'.:
,..'
".'.Y'. _'
"
..
,-~ .:'
..
"'~' c.'·'
'.
I, .'
" "
,. "1_ .,
.-
,.,
. '
~'
'.
"
.. ., .;
'f:
"
.'
'r",
..."
'., '
'. ~ .
. ~ >
':',
,',
',;.
c,
"
, 0> ~" ,
.:..'
, ~'.'
.. ~ ' .:
.,'1
",
,"
','
..,
. '
..
,
"
I,
'.)
" ~ ",
'?".'
..
",
, .
','
, .
,"'
, ,
·..·.·t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION FOUR - LIST OF PERSONS THAT PREPARED INITIAL
STUDY I NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Quad Knopf, Inc.
Stephen J. Peck, AICP, Project Manager
Travis Crawford, Analyst
Jan Chubbuck, Office Manager
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
August 2004
4-1
,',I,j,~"
"I
I"
'~I
"I,:
:1
"I' ..
, -
.. ".
'I~,
"I'
'I'
I~
I~'
. . ~;;
'I':'
, ,
'I
,I,'
I'
. ~ - ~
,"> "
-"I
...
'Ie'
",/ì,".":..
I
>1
.' ~
,,' .. '-
"'-,
-"..... .
-,-
.'~
, -
.~, '.. .
'.,'
-
'.
,-
-':-',
"-l
/',,'
-,
-,
--
'.,
. .~,
<,"
",'
, ,
".
"
.
>, ~ .
','»'" .
-'
, ,
~':' :....
, ,
" -
" .~.
",
+ ,'\
,',
.'
,."
. .',
-.
, ,
't ~', .'
,.
.~ ~...
.....
",;
, ~'.
"
, ,-
-',
",\oJ
. ,
'<"
:
-,-
"
+ ,~, .
,,',,',;
".1
,}t
... :.-(.,
H
.t
',,'
'I
"
"':,")
" >
, ~ I .
; ~ .
"
"
, '
," '-
.' '
<.J.'
. t\ " I
"
,,'
~~ ~7
,',
-',
'." .
'"
"
, .
< "
. \' ,:.... '
,-
{,
- -
.~ .. .
. -
,'-
"
, '-
. ~.,"
,,~, ,
,-
.'::-.
," ;
~ )..:.
,.,'
~-
"
. -
. , -"
, ,
'"
"j (.
" .
"
!,,,:
;:,
I"
'..'{.¡.
,',
',-
.¡ ,·t·
,
;,
;,
.. ,
"
" "~
~.\
'.
, ,
, --
"
'. .,
<.
~ ' .
. j.~:
"
, ~
--,
'-
"
/
,~- ,
,--
.,'
:.1
"
",
1+,
"
--
",
'"
I" ~
, ,
- ^
'"
,- '.
,',
.-' .
, ,
_'I'
- ,
" ,-.
~ ~ '
"
":;i
" '
',":
, '
"-
..
",'. "
..
". >
'-,
, '
",-
.",\
..,....
. ~.I
, ,
,-
"
. ~.. .
"
'.¡ ,
, ,
"
i.,
. ,!
.~/.
"
, "
,F
",
" -
..'
; -
.....
.\ "
.'
'"
","
. . ~ -.
" ....
'"
·'.l
-"
, '
,.
'.
','
"
,'. "
-:-
,>
'-
"
',-
. ,
./~ ~
, ,;
.,'
:\'
~ ,.'
"
, ,~ECTIONFIVE~
P,ERSÖNS: A'NDÅGENCIESCONTACTED',:
. " - - .. >'
L,'
. ,.r'
0'
-,
: ~..-
'...,,',
"
~ 1· ~'
'. t"'
"
,',
'< '
"
-;"
, -
".
, ..
"
,,'
'c:'
.,~" ~ . ,
"
,',
. t·,
" ~ .
, '-
, .
:;
- ,
{,
,.'
,\,
'l:"
, ,
.-
",,-,'
,
',-,
. ~ ~ ~.
'··1
""
"
..
"
""--,,'.
, -
, - ,~
,
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION FIVE - PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED
Norris School District
Agencies and Individuals
Receiving Copies of the
Initial Study / Negative
Declaration
Wallace E. McCormick, Ph.D.
Superintendent
California Department of Transportation, District 6
California State Clearinghouse
California Water Service Co.
California Water Quality Control Board
City of Bakersfield Engineering Department
City of Bakersfield Fire Department
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
City of Bakersfield Police Department
City of Bakersfield Wastewater Division
Kern Council of Governments
Kern County Agriculture Commission
Kern County Environmental Health Services
Kern County Fire Protection District
Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission
Kern County Planning & Development
Kern County Resource Management Agency
Kern County Roads Department
Kern County Sheriffs Department
Kern County Waste Management
Pacific Gas and Electric, Service Planning Department
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The Gas Company
Vamer Brothers
Norris School District
Draft Initial Study/Mitgated Negative Declaration
August 2004
5-1
5001 California Avenue, Suite 230
Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 616-2600
900 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 861-0997
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I I
Engineering
Architecture
Planning
Land Surveying
GIS/GPS
Biology
5110 W, Cypress Avenue
Visalia, California 93277
(559) 733-0440
8405 N, Fresno Street, Suite 300
Fresno, California 93720
(559) 449-2400
One Sierragate Plaza, Suite 270c
Roseville, California 95678
(916) 784-7823
1170 Financial Boulevard, Suite 650
Reno, Nevada 89502
(775) 324-1212
..
Quad Knopf