The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBUSINESS PLANn N H UW as H ~~ -x _~ ~ N ~~ U~ ~~ i -__=-_ J - ~\ ~ ~~ j, S V~ •. ---~.~ B A K E R S F I E L D NOTICE OF SLOPING MEETING PREVENTION SERVICES - FIRE DEPARTMENT RALPH HUEY -- NOTICE IS NEARBY GIVEN that comments from the public and agencies will be taken at a scoping meeting to begin at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter, as the matter may be heard on FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2006 in the first floor conference room in the Planning Division, Development Services Department, Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, Califomia 93301, to consider the following: Item to be considered: Scoping meeting to discuss the content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Canyons Project (File # 03-0337). The proposed project consists of amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City of Bakersfield General Plan, amendment of the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks and Trails Plan, rezoning, and subdivisions for mixed-uses including single and multiple family residential, commercial, recreational areas, trails, parks and open space on 890 acres. 2. Project location: The Project site is located within the northeast portion of the City of Bakersfield, California.. The Project site is generally located south of Hart Park and Alfred Harrell Highway. Portions of Sections 1 and 6 of Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. 3. The name and address of the project applicant: Robert Kapral Canyons LLC 1712 19"' St. #127 Bakersfield CA 93301 4. .Purpose of the meeting: You are invited to submit comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be addressed in the EIR. (In the future, you will be sent additional notices for public hearings regarding this project. ) FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact Jennie Eng of the Planning Division, Development Services Department in the Development Services building at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (661) 326-3733. PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project will be accepted in writing on or before the meeting date indicated above at the Planning Department. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those .issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of the hearing. DATED: March 13, 2006 POSTED: March 14, 2006 Signature: ~',--t~=~2 ~`-~,.~~ ,d'ames D. Maus -~ ' Planning Director S:103-0337 CanyonslnoplN OF SLOP Mtg.doc ^e NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: ~ ~ Agencies, Organizations,:and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report In Compliance With Title 14, Section 15082(a} of the California Code of Regulations. The City of Bakersfield will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act in the prepazation :of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project defined below. We request the review by your agency as .to the scope :and content of the environmental information relevant to your ag~~cy's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. -Your agency may need to use the E1R prepared by the .City of Bakersfield when considering permits that your agency may issue, or other approval for the project. The ,project description, location, ahd probable environmental effects of the proposed project are contained in the attached Initial Study. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be received no later than 30 days after .the receipt of this notice. Please indicate a contact person in your response and send your response to the following: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661.326.3733 Project Title .................... The Canyons Project Location .............. The subject site is located south of Hart Memorial Pazk in the northeastern part of the City of Bakersfield. Project Description ......... The proposed project is the development of a mixed-use residential community on approximately 890 acres that:includes: approximately 1,280 single-family residential dwellings; 120 multi-family residential dwelling units; a 8.15-acre site for general commercial development; a 28.18-acre site -for semi-public recreation; a private recreation center; three public parks totaling 17:33 acres; 9 miles of .public trails, 2 miles of public bike path; approximately 42 acres of maintained common azea and :approximately 284 acres of open space. The proposed project also includes constntction ofoff--site roads.and public utilities. Public .utilities to the site and within the project site would include domestic water, sewer, electricity, telephone, natural gas, and .cable television. Two off-site access roads will be constructed that link the-.site to arterial roadways. The proposed project also includes restoration, grading of approximately 40 acres of contiguous, offsite property owned by the County of Kern Waste Management together with the constmction of a local public street with trail to serve as access to a proposed future City pazk. The proposed project requires the amendment to the Land Jse and Circulation Elements of the City of Bakersfield General Plan, amendment of the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Pazks and Trails Plan, rezoning, a westing Tentative Tract Map, and a Vesting Ten 've Parcel -Map. Signature: _~~~ 7 /~Gj ~j _ Jennie ng, ruicipal. anner Date `~ ~' e.3i` Initial Study for The Canyons Prepared for: City of .Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division _ 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 , 661.326.3733 Contact: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP i i i~~ March 13, 2006 Z :,~ City of Bakersfield -The Canyons - ' Inltlal Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ , Section 1: Environmental Checklist Form ..................................................................:.......1 1.1 -Project Information .................................................................................:.......... ..1 Section 2: Introduction ................................................:...................................................... .. 5 2.1 -Purpose .......................................................:.........................:........::......:....:..... ..5 2.2 -Project Location .............:............................................................:..................... ..5 2.3 -Project Description ..............................................................................,. 5 2.4 -Alternatives To The Proposed Project .........~ .................................:................... 22 2.5 -Intended Use of This Document ........................................................:............... 22 2.6 -Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 25 ......................................................................... 2.7 -Project Phasing ....:.....:............. 25 Section 3: Environmental Evaluation ..............:........:........................................................ 27 1. Aesthetics ............................:......:...........................................:............................ 27 2. Agriculture Resources ............................................:......................... ............... 27 3. Air Quality .....................................................................:............. ............:.. .:. .... ... 27 4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 28 5. Cultural Resources ...:.......................................................................................... 29 6. Geology and Soils ......................................................:............................:........... 29 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. ...................:............................... ............... .... 30 8. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................:....................... 30 9. Land Use and Planning .....................................................................:................ 31 10. Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 32 11. Noise ................................................................................................................... 32 12. Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 33 13. Public Services .....:...........:.................................................................................. 33 14. Recreation ......................................................:.................................. ..... ............. 33 15. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................:.:...... 33 16. Utilities and Service Systems ...........:.............:.................................................... 34 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................... 35 Section 4: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation .......................................................37 1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ 37 2. Agriculture Resources ............:....................................................................:....... 39 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................39 4. Biological Resources ......................................................................:...................:42 5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................:............... .......44 .... 6. Geology and Soils ..........................................................................:.................... 44 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................46 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................:...................................49 9. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... 51 10. Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................53 11. Noise ................................................................................................................... 54 12. Population And Housing .............................................................................:........55 13. Public Services ....................................................................................................56 14. Recreation .........................................................................:................................. 58 15. Transportation/Traffic ..................................... ................................................. 59 .... 16. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 60 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................... 64 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JI~W216\02160027\LS\02160027 Ihaft LS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Table of Contents Inltfal Study EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ...............................................................................:.........:. 7. Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .. ............................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 3: Site Plan ................................................................................................:...............11 Exhibit 4: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ..............................13 ' Exhibit 5: Existing and Proposed Circulation Element Roadway Designations ....................15 Exhibit 6: Existing and Proposed Circulation Element Bike Paths ........................................17 Exhibit 7: Proposed Onsite Parks and Trails ........................................................................19 Exhibit 8: Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations ........................................................ 23 TABLES Table 1: General Plan Amendments ....................... Table 2: Zoning Changes ........................................ ............................................................. 21 ............................................................. 21 r A.f . v! Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-.1N)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Ihatl 1S Canyons 03-13.doc i ., Cfty of Bakerstfeld -The Canyons ' Initial Study Environmental Checklist Fonn SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.1 ~- PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title ............................................The Canyons 2. ~ Lead Agency Name and Address............ City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number ........ Jennie Eng, Principal Planner 661.326.3733 4. Project Location ...................................... The subject site is located south of Hart Memorial Park in the northeastern part of the City of Bakersfield. S..Project Sponsor's Name and Address ..... Robert Kapral Canyons, LLC 1712 19~' Street, Suite 127 Bakersfield, CA 93301 6. Description of Project ............................. Development Features The proposed project is the development of a mixed-use residential community on approximately 890 acres that includes: approximately 1,280 single-family residential dwellings; 120 multi-family residential dwelling units; a 8.15-acre site for general commercial development; a 28.18-acre site for semi-public recreation; a private recreation center; three public parks totaling 17.33 acres; 9 miles of public trails, 2 miles of public bike path; approximately 42 acres of maintained common area; and approximately 284 acres of open space. The proposed project also includes restoration grading of approximately 40 acres of contiguous, offsite property owned by the County of Kern Waste Management together with the construction of a local public street with trail to serve as access to a proposed future City park. Access The residential planned community includes the construction of off-site public utilities to include water, sewer, electric, telephone, natural gas, and cable television. In addition to the off-site utilities, the project proposes construction of off-site roads that include two Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGent (PN-JN)\0216\0216002NS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.dac ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Environmental Checklist Form InISa! Study access roads connecting the project site to major arterials. Amendments The proposed project requires the amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City of Bakersfield General Plan, amendment of the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Pazks and Trails Plan, rezoning, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Vesting Pazcel Map. 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting....... The project site is located on approximately 890 acres of land that is predominantly open space that has been disturbed by the construction ofhigh-voltage transmission lines and their continued maintenance, previous oil, sand and gravel operations, and use of off- road recreational vehicles by the public. Surrounding land uses include Low Density Residential to the south, and east, open space to the northwest, north and northeast, and a closed landfill to the southwest. 8. Local Agencies Involved ........................ Based on an initial review of the proposed project and location, the City of Bakersfield is the only local agency involved in discretionary project approvals. Following is a list of anticipated entitlements: • General Plan Land Use Element Amendment • General P1an.Circulation Element Amendment • Northeast Bakersfield Specific Parks & Trails Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Vesting Tentative Tract Map • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map • Final Pazcel Map • Final Tract Maps • Grading Permits • Building Permits 1+ Michael Brandman Associates H:\C-ient (PN INj\02 1 6102 1 60 02 7\IS\02160027 Dnaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ~. City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Environmental Checkdist Fonn ~` ~, nv~ ~nme+~tal Factors ~ ~a l: , ffect 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. Aesthetics , Biological Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Mineral Resources ® Public Services ® Utilities/Services Systems ^ Agriculture Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Hydrology/Water Quality Noise ® Recreation ~ TransportationfTraffic ~ Mandatory 1~indings of Significance ®~ Q~tY ~ Geology/Soils Land Llse/PlannirJg Population/Housing r, Eta ;r rimerttal Deter ,"~a~~- : ~ °' ~ '~ On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the :proposed project could not have a significant effect on the .environment, .and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. '~ 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. [] T find that although the proposed project .could have a significant effect on she 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. I find that :the proposed project MAY have a :significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Ln-pact.Report.s required. I find that.the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially :significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, .and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure 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. Q I find that although the proposed .project could have a significant .effect on the environment, because all potentially significant.effeets (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. ~/13~0~ ~~ Jennie Eng, Prir-cipal Planner Date Michael Brandman Associates 3 H:~Client (PN-JN)V0216~021600'17~IS~2160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ., City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Introduction SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION 2.1 -PURPOSE ~~ The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed mixed-use residential project on approximately 890 acres in the City of Bakersfield (City). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency in the prepazation of this Initial Study, and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The City has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public. The remainder of this section provides a description of the project location and the characteristics of the proposed project. Section 3 includes. an environmental checklist that gives an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Section 4 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, providing justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist. 2.2 -PROJECT LOCATION The approximately 890-acre site is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield south of Hart Memorial Park (see Exhibit 1). The site is bounded by Alfred Harrell Highway to the west, and,vacant land immediately on the north, south and east (see Exhibit 2). The Kern River is located to the north of Alfred Harrell Highway, and the future alignment of Morning Drive is located approximately 0.3 of a mile east of the project site. 2.3 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.3.7.- Development Features The proposedmixed-use project is primarily residential in nature and would result in the development of approximately 1,280 single-family residential lots to be developed with dwelling units up to three stories in height, approximately 120 multi-family dwelling units, and approximately 65,000 squaze feet of general commercial space on approximately 8.15 acres (see Exhibit 3). The multiple-family residential development will be integrated into an approximate 28.18 acre semi-public recreational area that includes a private recreational center. In addition to this center, three public pazks totaling Michael Brandman Associates 5 H:\CGent (PN-]I~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft 15 Canyons 03-13.doc ., ' Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Introduction Initial Study 17.33 acres aze proposed. There will be approximately 9 miles of public trails and approximately 2 miles of public bike paths. Approximately 284 acres will be retained as open space together with approximately 42 acres of maintained common azea. Development is anticipated to commence in 2007 and project build-out is projected to occur in the yeaz 2016. 2.3.2 -Access/Utilities The project proposes two primary vehiculaz access roadways that would connect to major arterials in the vicinity of the project. Utilities would be located in these roadways or in sepazate easements. In addition to the two primary vehiculaz access roadways, a secondary vehiculaz access roadway is . proposed that would connect the southeastern portion of the site to one of the two primary vehiculaz access roadways. 2.3.3 -Planning Actions identified for approval of the proposed project include the following: 1. Approval of various General Plan Land Use Element Amendments (see Table 1 and Exhibit 4); and 2. Approval of General Plan Circulation Element amendment to extend offsite collector street alignments to and within the proposed project site (see Exhibit 5) and extend offsite bike paths to-and within the project site (see Exhibit 6); 3. Approval of an amendment to the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Pazks and Trails Plan to remove and re-route conflicting and redundant trails within the proposed project site and to re-locate conflicting pazks within the proposed project site (see Exhibit 7 for proposed onsite pazks and trails); 6 M/chael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ~ ___ _ _Kings County ._ ------- --- ----• -- -~; Tu-are Courny `~' + 41 KernCounry - - -----•- -+-- ---KeinCounry .. ---- --. ~' } --~--- ; o 6cn .m. ------ ~_ 155 ~ . , r-~ f ------ ' ~ ~ ~ Lake ',-' '--- . ~ '~ ~ 1714 - ' -- (c 43 99 65 i ~ Isabella -- ' c ~- I .~ - o •+ ~ 4.6 ~~• ,_ - , Se I + 46 ~ ' ~ `~ ~_ F ; 178 r1 ~ ~ --- I •+ ~ 3:3 ~ -' ~ -------- ~ Sequoia ~ - ~ S _ - ~ ~ '-- National ' + - ' ~ ~ Forest I Harr ,-~ ' i ._ Hwy ~ ~ . - - , , + `k~~ P - ~ - - -- ~_ ' sa 1~s -. , sa ~- McKittrick RROJECT :---_ 99 LOCATION + 43 Ba rsfield i jg4 5 $ + _..---~ - 119 + 119 f I ~ 223 + 'r-- ' 33 Taft I 99 - Tehachapi ~_-,- Marii:opa 5a I 166 N + 33 5' I 5 . 16b 166 + ti----------------------- ----- 14 -- •---- •,,, -- -- 5 -- , A - 33 ~ ; L:.- Kern.County - - Kern County -- - -- -•- ------------- - - -----~ Ventura County' _~_;. Los.Angeles County Los Padres - ' ~Qf1118t1 National Forest ; . ~~~~ Z SCALE IN M1LES Michael BcanBman Associates Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map Q2i60027. 022006 I cegiona.l locaGon.map,ai THE CANYONS • CITY OF BAKER$FIELD ,~. ~N ~~~~ ~~ a,zo~,~oo o a,zoo exhibit 2 ~~~~ Z SCALE." FEET - Local Vicinity- Map Michael Brandman Associates 02160027.02/2006 ~ local vicinity map.cdr THE CANYONS • CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ~ IW ,I% I ' I 1 1'~ A I 111^ R -I ~~ ~\1- I ~, - ~ ~ .. /I - i ~~~ Imo' - `a ~\~~° I _ ~ I_ 1 Ie ~ a R -~ r z - _ I / _ I 1 ;, _ ---' A s g 1 d R ~ A ' a 1 A R `~~ `` ~i60 ~ h,~~ I ~~~~ z `~ .,' I I 11~ ' _- _ 1 , ------ ;~ / ' - A ~ ;, a i ~ z• a ' _ I ~/&~ x R A q A A P _ \~~ _ \/1 ~/ ; _ _ ~1 - 1 ~ ~\ Y I 1 ~/ ~~ p _. ~ ~o $ AI `~ al e $el i 1 ~ ~4 \~ a ^ RI W, M1 ~ti U' Y all ' al ~l ~~~ ~ 1~ z A ~;, ~ s R \ ~\ s A a` ~ ~ I 0 a _ ~'~~ sk o~ \ x x x R 1 - °~° I? k \ s s 8 a 1 I ~' _ ~ ~.~.~.~_ /~ 4 = ? A ° a _ \ ° ^ ' ' a ~ 9 36ZE1'S6l1 R l y ._ ~ - A ~' ~ (~\~ 'II _R x E ~ e e = ~\ s •$' a 8 8 A F g 5 f 1~ E - i~ zW c y _ a Q e~ A ~ __ _- -. ~ E (~ ~///~ r~~~ A ~ ~ e 5 ' @ 8 ~- -e r a @ _ t - A 8 a g ._.._. `~ ~~ J ~/~ ~ ~ a - ~~ - 3 z @ yes 5 e @ = I a e _ ? !` R a 9 x A z a R P S a \\ - 9 - a a ~ a - ---_--_ J 0 A _ _ '~_ ' R e e 8 a @' a ~ R _ 8 ~ ____,~ ~ s e ^ .. _ A '1 R a R A A A 11 ~ / j I iii _ - ~Il--_-_ - ~c / % , ^1ilJ~ •Y 1 _ 1 X46 S _ _ ~ / ------- J- J i 1 iio.~ `~`.l i~/`!/ x ° A .` ~'~ i ----Sri-Ir - 1; i 1~^-0'-- ---- ® A s : z ---- ~- I'~p .. hl Ni .. e i / X11 111 p , e ~ 111 1 A ® \ 1 I I I x \\ 1 ~~~sn a \ a . ~- l1/II C ~ 111 1 s W 88 / I 6g- l 11` 1 _ ~ ~`~~~ ``III \ ~~ \ R e ' a a R Y .Y \ _____~ `I~ e e A R -,`-~.-mss __~~~ x ~ W F s ii~~ es ~ __ ~~~' AA 1/ ' F - A A A // ~ _ 1 a a / 1/ ~ - - 1 c a _ 11 I A8 ~ 1 \~ x 4 a /4 ~ ~ i ° x ° // 1 _ - a .x ~ / a e _ ^ c I _ ~ a tl ® 1 g A e t e - _ ' b~ ~§ a ao /~ 3 A e ~~` 80 _ 8 g I Re ~ A A -_ @ y Y i 8 a F /~ ' S R R a _ z / A a z ^ x _ i/ '-Y- - ~ x a - g a x c e a C R C 1 1 1 x l ~/ ~ - - ^ A ~ - 8 ® x ~ R ~ I jIf C I ~ 1 s / / ~ ~ _ ^ _ I f ~ , ~ / \ ~ ~ ~ - I / / \ ~ ~% / ~ ~~ i j ~ 1 _ / ~' Bar` ~ '. ~ i a s's / / ~~ ~ I L / // - i / ~ C - ~ ~p I .. ~ $9 ~- - ~a~asasr~ - I _ _AYMIIOM 'TgYAIA ~H _- I ~ ~' ' r--~ ~ XaW ~' ~ •.-. m LL O U z O r U W H j O LL 1 ~~ O 1 I I O '~ 1 CO a°7-~ L ~ 1 i ~ O 1 i H1210N ~~ ~ ~d C CqqO ~I .y MI O 0 a 0 0 0 0 Existing 3 80k Proposed ~ .. .~ L:EGEND GYP , aura ber6rrv FEBOer76AL ~ l~Y, 4 pm. ~aa .s m~v reavxnii . . ~ N a:a w.cu.+/er nrnc fl~"~ . ~.. ... ~. - ,. ~s4acES,ex[ffoKasan.. ~I ~ . ' ~ 28.8 ~~ ~. Soures:.PinnadsC1vil<En,ginsering, Inc:; June 2;12005: ~+ a EXn~b~t-4 ~® ~ '1;053 -:526:5': 0 '1;()53 EX1St111g' and P~'~pOSeC~. o M~chaelBrandmanAssociates Feet Gene~a.l .Plan-Land LJse Desi;gnatonS:: 021;60027•.0212006 ~ 4_sxisting_proposed_gsn_plan_la~d_uss_dssig.cdi• -THE GANYQNS ~ CITYQF.:BAKERSFIELD Source. Binnacle Civil Engineering,-.Ina,June,~;'20U5:. E~ihibit 5 ~~~~ ~ _ riarra seai:E: E?~IStitl~ iilld PTOpt~sed ~~~ ~ >~r~$~1-3r~,a~,~~~.~~r~~:iR~~: Circulation ~~.ement Roadway. De~gnatQn~ 02160027.02f2©06 ~ 5,~aiiis[ing;,~roposetl~r.~rc elemenk raadwy~dasigcdr THE°GANYOtVS ~ CITY;OFBAKERSEIELD :~ Exs~i ng - --~ .; . ~.~ . :_-.: .-':--;.EK13iIN6.HICiH4YAY3 __. ... _ ~i,, ~E)QSi1NG~PLAiiNED .. .. -..,.._._ ._._. .. ... C5,t7. ~' -Bp(E' PATH~TgpLS: -.._..------- - ----- W..`4 ~ ~! ~~ ~~ P'uc~~e ,~ ~-ague ~.- . c4-c~: ~.:r_,_~.irs~i.. _i~ca.:c,.~.t.?:~*.r..~~,,terra-s~::~-ra-sx^s~?~::~:-r.~.rx.- Propo"sed LECE9~II~ ~,.~..~ PROP08eD. Pl: apINED BIKE PATWTI7ALL5. Q J t''"- ,a- d 4' y9;?r. 'a, seennw zx:? sass: ~'q scaciavv v reane i~ ~~;j ~~~~~~~ €~ ~ aft" . ~ ti ~~ „ n ~T ,~ o 4~Y t~,, ~' a: A.~xx~~.~x~~ _ _.s~,.~r~..,.~G;-etctc~sp.=r~n~c1?n.=~-z-:a;~ca ~~r:,-'~.','.• ,~ I ~. Sourcei ~innacle:CivifEripilieeiinq; In"c:,Januarv2004. ~~~~ 3400' 1;700 0" 3;40©" ~~~~z° ~ Feef.: Tvfichaet.l6xandm an Associates •: tXhibit ~ EXisting ~a Propo~ea. Circulation Element Bike Paths ;02160027 •:0212006 ~ 6_exisfing_pPopo ed_circ ele bike_pafhlcdr THE CANYONS ?CITYdF BAKERSFIELD } At/MFIENH r. 'u~ ,--, 'a x ~ F w 'C ~n Q, .;,-.~ 0 W J Q U O r O z MILION ~~ ~® ~~ 0 ' Cfty of 8akersi-eld -The Canyons ' Inltlal Study Introduction 4. Approval of various zoning changes (see Table 2) (see Exhibit 8); 5. Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6299; 6. Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 11189; ~ 7. Approval of a subsequent Final Parcel Map for the project. 8. Approval of subsequent Final tract maps for the Project; , 9. Approval of grading permits; 10. Approval of building permits Table 1: General Plan Amendments Existing General Plan Ac. % of Site Proposed General Plan Ac. % of Site OS-S 634.18 71.4 OS-S 284.41 32.0 LR 254.50 28.6 LR 521.26 58.7 LMR 74.86 8.4 GC 8.15 0.9 Total 888.68 100.0 - 888.68 100.0 OS-S: Open Space -slopes exceeding 30% LR: Low-density Residential (7.26 d.u./net acre) LMR: Low-medium Residentia14-10 d.u./net acre). GC: General Commercial Table 2: Zoning Changes Existing Zoning Ac. Proposed Zoning Ac. R-1-HD 774.95 OS-HD 284.41 R-1 113.56 R-1-HD 521.26 R-S-lOA-HD 0.17 R-2-HD 46.68 R-2-PUD-HD 28.18 C-2-PCD-HD 8.15 Total 888.68 888.68 2.3.4 -Technical Studies The following technical studies are under preparation and will be summarized into the EIR and included in their entirety as appendices to the EIR: • Traffic/Transportation • Noise and Acoustics Michael Brandman Assoc/ates 21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\0216002NS\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfle/d -The Canyons ' introduction Initial Study • Air Quality • Biological Resources • GeotechnicaUSoils • Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and Phase II Environmental Site Investigations • Paleontology • Cultural Resources • Visual Resources • Hydrology/Drainage • Sanitary Sewer • Domestic Water • Conceptual Grading Plan • Domestic Water Supply Assessment 2.4 -ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the EIR will include a compazative evaluation of the proposed project with the alternatives to the project. Preliminarily, a few alternatives have been initially identified. These alternatives include the No Project/No Development Alternative (includes no new development on the site); Development in Accordance with the General Plan Land Uses (includes less area to be developed with low density residential), an alternative with a reduced number of residential units (includes fewer units at the same density and an alternative access to Morning Drive), and an alternative site. The formulation of the range of alternatives is still in process. 2.5 -INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This Initial Study document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regazding the proposed project, following the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR. The NOP will be circulated for 30 days, during which period comments regarding the issues to be addressed in the EIR are invited to be sent to: City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attn: Jennie Eng, Principal Planner 22 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-.IN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc Existing _.~ : --- ~ i ~ . i, . _. r-- nes~ma ~.aux3er roacnrn. o.» ~- hpI,LSCE .EYaOW.7EMT :~.~ j ftli ONE FAWIIY~OWcLLBiL3; ~~ E ONE FAMY.Y D1Yc'L.LBA. `~ I M1SGE t^.EV9.'.Wl.1ENT ~ - ~• R-1-HD 4 ~ 1 ....... T~4.~ 8~ .. __ { ~ r i t_ '.E{ _ ~ ~ G17 ass ~ ~ ~ X12.11 8G5. ~ j ~ i "~. i. ~ ~ -j _ _ _ R,~ -.._.. ~ 101.45 acs: ~ ~~ I . Proposed ~~~ . ,CPE71 S'PGe 1ll:SIDE OEYEtO=f~EUt-. - - ~t'2-4Wi16;,:M0.C0ES FEffl1T _LIOCIFICATY.INTOTFIgEE.5TOf2~`- .:~. ~~..~ `~~ '.'i .:~ ~ ... '. ' 29912[SD.~.... ~C'T/AN'T' 70/78 ~~~E~,® -'-'a Ct~'FJJiLY 6N41L916' -~-FBLSIDE OEVELU~AEUT. ^a LlMTED'NJLTIPLE FP.1AY. '9 k0.151PE'.OEYELUah£wF' C ~{,~'] Llkl® WtitFYflY PJMa~. '' ~~ lLLlSd)E:OE4El0°AENT' secrTav a 77Y1D .. . -; a gc+oup,, une ~r + Exhibit g ®~~~ 1;538 7fi9 0 1;538• E111.St111-g ana. PrO.pOS~d: ~~~~z ~ F.eef' n {- MichaelBrandmanAsso.ciates ZQ11lYlg. DeSlgTlaLZOns 021'8002T• 0212006:x(8_existing_propased_zoning_desig-c6r; 'THE CANYdNS • CITY(}F BAKERSFIELD. I City of 8akefsfleld -The Canyons Initial Study Introduction 2.6 -ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located on approximately 890 acres of land that is predominantly open space, much of which has been disturbed by the construction ofhigh-voltage transmission lines and their continued maintenance, previous oil, sand and gravel operations, and use of off-road recreational vehicles by the public. Surrounding land uses include open space to the south, east, northwest, north and northeast, and a closed landfill to the southwest. The project site contains relatively flat areas and -steep slopes with elevations ranging between approximately 600 and 900 feet above mean sea level. Disturbed and undisturbed vegetation occurs on the site and surrounding areas. The project site is adjacent to the Alfred Harrell Highway on the western boundary with residential uses beyond the highway further west. 2.7 -PROJECT PHASING The project is proposed to be developed in phases commencing in 2007 with completion of the project estimated for 2016.- The entire project site will be mass-graded together with the construction of onsite and offsite public streets and highways, backbone sewer, water, storm drain facilities and utilities at one time. Michael Brandman Associates Y5 H:\Client (PN-]IV)\0216\02160027US\02160027 Draft LS Canyons 03-13.doc ., City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Potentially Less Than .Significant Less Than No Environmentallssues Significant With Significant impact impact Miti atiOn Impact 1. Aesthetics Would theprojezx: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ® ^ ^ ^ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ® ^ ^ ^ outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic. highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ® ^ ^ ^ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glaze which would adversely affect day or nighttime ® ^ ^ ^ views in the azea? 2. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental et~ects, ]cad agencies may reler to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California llepariment of Conservation as an optional model touse in assessing impacts nn agriculture and farmland. {ti`oitld the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepazed pursuant to the ^ ^ ® ^ Fazmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- . agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ^ ^ ® ^ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ^ ^ ® ^ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. ~`ould the prgject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ® ^ ^ ^ applicable air quality plan? Michael Brendman Assoc/ates H:\Client (PN-.1N)\0216\021ti0027\IS\02160027 Dcatl iS Canyons 03-13.doc 27 City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Environmentallssues Significant With.;.,.. Significant Im act P Impact Miti anon Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or. projected air ® ^ ^ ^ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ® ^ ^ ^ standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds.for ozone precursors)? ' d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ® ^ ^ ^ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ® 0 substantial number of people? 4. Biological Resources {f'ould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional ® ^ ^ ^ plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any _._.. riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ® ^ ^ ^ policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? .. .. _ __ _.._ .,, _ _..____.~,_.._,___ __ _ _ _ __ y c) Have a substantial ad verse effect on federall _.. _ _. protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ® ^ ^ ^ to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ~. any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ® ^ ^ ^ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ^ ^ ® ^ preservation policy or ordinance? 28 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-.11~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City ofBakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Environmental Evaluation Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Environmentallssues Significant With Significant Im act P Impact Miti ation Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ^ ^ ® ^ Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ® ^ ^ ^ in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ® ^ ^ ^ pursuant to § 15064.5? ___.__ c) Directly or indirectly destroy aunique --_____ paleontological resource or site or unique ® ^ ^ ^ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ®' ^ ^ ^ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. Geology,and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ® ^ ^ ^ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ® ^ ^ ^ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ® ^ ^ ^ liquefaction? . iv) Landslides? ® ^ ^ ^ b} Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ® ^ ^ ^ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ........................................................ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ® ^ ^ ^ or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ® ^ ^ ^ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Michael Brandman Associates 29 H:\Client (PN-JIV)W216\0216002TIS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons "~ Environmental Evaluation lnltlal Study Potentially. Less Than Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant .With Significant Impact Impact Miti ation Impact _____ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ^ ^ ^ disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials H'ottld 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 hazazdous materials into the environment? _.... _ _ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous _.__..w... ~. ~..~. or acutely hazazdous 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 hazazdous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ® ^ ^ ^ result, would it create a significant hazard to - . the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use . plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ^ ^ ^ . public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project azea? f) For a project within the vlculity 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 azeas or where residences are . - intermixed with wildlands? 8. Hydrology and Water Quality {l'ould the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ® ^ ^ ^ discharge requirements? 30 Michael Brandman Assoc/ates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\0216002'TIS\02160027 Draft IS.Canyons 03-13.doc City of BakersSeld -The Canyons Initial Study Environmental Evaluation Potentially Less Than .Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Im act P Impact Miti ation Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechazge 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 ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to ~ , ' a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river; in a ® ^ ^ ^ manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ® ^ ^ ^ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or ot~ 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 runoi~? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® ^ ^ ^ g) Place housing within a 100-yeaz flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ^ ^ ^ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazazd delineation map? h) Place within a 100-yeaz flood hazard azea ........................................................ structures, which would impede or redirect ^ ^ ^ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ^ ^ ^ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ~ ^ ^ 9. Land Use and Planning iI'ottld the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ Michael Brandman Assoc/ates 31 H:\Client (PN-JI~W216\0216002TIS\02160027 Draft LS Canyons 03-13.doc r ' Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Potentially Less Than Significant Less'Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Miti anon Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation'of an agency with jurisdiction over the project,(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ^ ^ ® ^ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict.with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities ^ ® ^ ^ conservation plan? 10. Mineral Resources mould tlae-project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ~ ^ ^ ^ region and the residents of the state? __ . _ ... _ .. ._ v .._._.. b) Result in the. loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery.site ^ ^ delineated on a local general plan, specific~plan of other land use plan? 11. Noise jt'oidd [he project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ® ~ ^ ^ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground ^ ^ ® ^ borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ® ^ ^ ^ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ® ^ - ^ ^ above levels existing without the project? e) For aproject 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 .w.~...~.~._.._....._~.,.. _. airstrip, would, the project expose people ^ ^ ^ residing or working in the project area to. excessive noise levels? . 32 Mfchae/ Brandman Assoc/ales H:\Client (PN-.TN)\0216W2160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City ofBakersfield -The Canyons Inltfal Study Environmental Evaluation Potentially Less Than Significant. Less Than No Environmentallssues Significant With Significant impact Impact Miti ation Impact 12. Population and Housing Would the'project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ® ^ ^ ^ , through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ^ ^ ^ replacement housing elsewhere? ~~ _ c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement ^ ^ ^ housing elsewhere? 13 Public Services Wouldthe project result,in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need forne«~ or physically altered govc~nnental facilities, the construction of which could causesignificant environmental itnpacts,`in order o maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives f or any of the pizblic services: a) Fire Protection? ® ^ ^ ^ b) Police Protection? ® ^ ^ ^ c) Schools? ® ^ ^ ^ d) Parks? ® ^ ^ ^ e) Other public facilities? ® ^ ^ ^ 14. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ® ^ ^ ^ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ^ ^ ® ^ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? -15. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in ® ^ ^ ^ a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Michael Brandman Associates 33 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\0216002TIS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Environmental Evaluation Init/al Study Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With '' Significant Impact Impact Mlti` atlan Impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standazd 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 pazking capacity? ~ ^ ^ ^ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ^ ^ ® ^ (e.g., bus turnouts; bicycle racks)? 16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the projer.t: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of . the applicable.Regional Water Quality Control ® ^ ^ ^ Boazd? _. _ _... 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 - ® ^ ^ ^ facilities, the construction of which existing 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? . _ ,.. . .~, a... .. . . , , .. ~. . . ..~ ~ , .. , . .. _ .. . , . .. . .. , .. , 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? 34 Michael Brandman Assoc/ales H:~ci~c triv-nv>wziv~oz i~ooz~s~ozi6ooz~ nett rs c~yone o~-is.aoo Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons /nitia/ Study Environmental Evaluation Potentially Less Than ' Significant Less Than No Environmentallssues Significant nth Significant Im act P impact Miti ation impact 17. Mandatory Findings. of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to ® ^ ^ ^ eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" . means that the_ incremental effects of a project ® ^ ^ aze considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ^ ^ ® ^ human beings, either directly or indirectly? Michael Brandman Associates 35 H:\Client (PN-JI~\0216\02160027US\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluat/on SECTION 4: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ' The following environmental evaluation addresses impacts associated with the project. 1. AESTHETICS Existing Conditions The site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 890 acres, located in northeast Bakersfield mainly consisting of gently to steeply sloping hilly terrain. The site is predominately surrounded by vacant land. The site consists predominately of vacant land, with numerous unpaved access roads meandering azound and through the site. High voltage electric lines trend predominately north-south through the central portion of the site. Indications of mining and oil activity aze present in the southwest and southeast portions of the site, which have ceased. In addition, two lazge areas enclosed by remnant chain-link fencing and fill berms are located in the central portion of the site. These areas appeaz to have been used as retention basins during mining activities. A small built-up retention basin encroaches into the southern portion of the site, in the eastern section. A large water well with pump attached is located in the vicinity of this basin. As a result of mining activity at least two azeas consist of spoils or tailings, creating large fill mounds, located in the central portion of the site. Numerous fill piles, ranging from several feet to several hundred feet in size are also scattered throughout the southwest and southeast portions of the site. Piles of debris are scattered across the site along with several metal bollazds located in the central portion of the site. The site is covered with a spazse weed and grass growth with lazge azeas void of vegetation growth. Areas of sparse to medium dense brush growth are scattered across the site., Small trees are located in the central portion of the site. The site is north of the azea designated by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR as within the "Urban Northeast", which is generally bordered on the north by Panorama Drive,.on the east by Morning Drive, and south by Sumner/Niles Streets. This area includes older single-family neighborhoods such as the lazgely single-family Hillcrest community, limited local commercial, the Bakersfield College, and the Bakersfield Country Club. The East Hills Mall, a regional shopping center, also exists in this area. According to Exhibit 4.2-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIlt, bluffs, scenic views from highways, and scenic vantage points are within or neaz the site. The planning azea contains and is adjacent to significant open space, interpretive and recreational amenities such as Hart Park, habitat azeas, BLM land, inactive landfill, Kern River Soccer Pazk, California Living.Museum (CALM), Lake Ming, and the Kern River Trail System. Michael Brandman Associates 37 H:\Client (PN-.IN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Dn3ft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfield -The Canyons - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site consists of relatively flat azeas and moderate to steep sloping hillsides, which aze largely undeveloped, and vacant. Properties immediately surrounding the project site aze vacant and undeveloped. The nearest residential azeas aze to the north along the Kern River and south of Paladino Drive, approximately one mile from the project site. Potential impacts to these scenic resources will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Potentially Significant Impact. As mentioned under Response Item l.a, above, the onsite hillsides, and ridgelines are considered scenic. Potential impacts to these scenic resources-will be evaluated in the EIR. c). Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality.of the site and its . surroundings?. Potentially Significant Impact. The open space characteristics of the project site will be visually altered from its present vacant condition to the proposed residential development and commercial uses. Potential impacts to the site's existing visual character will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact.. The project will result in new lighting for streets, parking areas, as well-as home and building security. All lighting will be in compliance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure that the height and - intensity of lighting does not create substantial spillover outside the .project boundary. The increase in lighting from project development will be evaluated in the EIR. 38 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-.1N)\0216W216002TIS\02160027 IhaR IS Canyons 03-13.doc .~ C/ty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Inlt/al Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site is not used for agricultural production or zoned for agricultural use. There is no historical use of agriculture on the project site. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), .as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) . Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact (a, b, c). The project site is located within an elevated area of plateaus, hills and bluffs that aze non-irrigated land designated by the California Resource Agency as grazing land. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, the project site is not a part of a Williamson Act Contract and is not zoned for agricultural use; therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning or the Williamson Act. There is no active agriculture or historical use of agriculture on the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY Existing Conditions The project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The climate in this basin is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The average temperatures in the region of the project site is 65° Fahrenheit (F), with temperatures averaging 95°F during the summer months and winter lows averaging 45°F. Airflow patterns in the; vicinity of the project site generally flow from the north of the San Joaquin Valley to the south-southeast during the summer months and to the north-northwest during the winter months. During the winter months, this pattern occasionally reverses. The SJVAB is one of the most polluted parts of the country. The long, warm summers along with surrounding mountains trapping airborne pollutants neaz the Valley floor contribute to the Valley's Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGent (PN-JI~W216\02160027US\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc 39 City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ~ Discussion of Environmental Evaluat/on Initial Study smog problems. Heat and sunlight transform volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides from vehicle exhaust, industrial processes and other operations into ground-level ozone, also known as ~ ' smog. The SJVAB is designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an extreme non-attainment azea for ozone, and as a serious non-attainment azea for PMIO. Bakersfield is designated as attainment for all other federal emissions standazds for criteria pollutants. The.SJVAB is designated as an extreme non-attainment azea for the state standards for ozone and PMio• Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state standards. .. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. The project is subject to the requirements of the U;S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Boazd (GARB), and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJAPCD). A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceed growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. The emissions associated with construction and operation of the project could ' . obstruct the implementation of the.applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The effects of the project on air quality and its compliance with the AQAP will be . furtlier evaluated in the EIR. The project will have a potentially significant impact upon air quality in the short-term (construction activities) and long-term (vehicle emissions); however, the extent of these impacts aze presently unlrnown until further - technical studies aze conducted. In addition, the EIR will address these impacts and the associated mitigation measures necessary to reduce air quality impacts. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact. The project would be located in the San Joaquin Valley. Air Basin, which is non-attainment for ozone. and PMIO: As stated above in answer 3(a), implementation of the project would contribute to both short=term and long-term air quality impacts in anon-attainment azea. Short-term construction emissions would result from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and on-site~grading. Long-term project impacts include emissions generated from vehicles of residents as well as employees and customers of the proposed commercial use. The Draft EIR will evaluate whether the construction and operational emissions 40 Mlchae/ Brandman Assx/aces H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Dnift IS Canyons 03-13.doc ., City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation would cause or contribute substantially to a new air quality violation of an ambient , air quality standazd, and whether the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 1 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project could potentially contribute to air quality impacts when combined with other existing and future emission sources in the azea. The EIR would include an analysis to determine cumulative air quality impacts and to evaluate whether the project would contribute substantially to these emissions. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, in the E1R, emission concentrations from non-stationary sources would be quantified and compazed to appropriate 5CAQIVID significance thresholds. The analysis will, include a carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spot" analysis at potentially impacted intersections. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Diesel emissions from construction equipment operating on the project site may create temporary objectionable odors. These odors would mainly be limited to the project site and would not affect a substantial number of people. Operational activities emissions could include heating and cooling exhaust and vents for potential food services. These emissions are subject to APCD permitting requirements and are not expected to create objectionable odors. Therefore, construction and operation of the project is not anticipated to create significant objectionable odors. Michael Brandman Associates 41 H:\Client (PN-JI~\0216\021ti002TIS\02160027 Dtaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc J' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons _. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Init/al Study 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions Most of the area planned for development is highly disturbed due to previous oil and mining activities, fire, and livestock grazing. The ongoing disturbances from off-highway-vehicles, biking; and hiking are also present. Much of the site is barren of vegetation and wildlife, as it was never reclaimed following the mining. The site supports several different habitat types or areas that support or could support specific types of vegetation communities. The primary habitat at the site is non- native grassland. Wildlife in this.area is typical of the San Joaquin Valley habitats. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) requires payment of a fee to compensate for the loss of threatened and endangered species habitat within the permit area. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on _ any species ident~ed 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? Potentially Significant Impact. The project entails the conversion of approximately 890 acres of highly disturbed undeveloped land to residential and commercial uses. As such, The Canyons project has the potential to affect sensitive and/or special status species, and sensitive habitat. A check of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) will be conducted to determine the potential for sensitive plant and animal species in the project vicinity. A site visit will be conducted in order to observe if any of these.or other sensitive species inhabit the project site and vicinity. The -EIR will include a detailed evaluation based on the findings of a technical study to be prepared for the project. 42 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216W2160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ~- ' Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discuss/on of Environmental Evaluation b) Have a substantial, adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural , community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the, California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by ,~ Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact (b, c). A site visit, followed by a technical study will determine if there aze any potentially significant impacts to sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional azeas regulated by the Clean Water Act. The E1R will include a detailed evaluation of the biological impacts of the project and recommend appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact. There are no active watercourses or bodies on the project site that could support- fish species; therefore, no impacts to fish habitat will occur. A biological evaluation will determine if the site is considered a wildlife comdor. The fmdings of the biological survey will be discussed in the E1R. e) Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The applicable local policy protecting biological resources is the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The project must comply with this plan. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? Less Than Signifcant Impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) is the regional habitat conservation plan applicable to the project site. The MBHCP and implementing agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for preservation and enhancement of habitat land. Projects within Michael Brandman Associates 43 H:\Client (PN-]I~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' City of Bakerstleld -The Canyons ' Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Inltlal Study the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are required to pay aone-time MBHCP mitigation fee. Payment of this fee would ensure compliance with the MBHCP and result in a less than significant impact for those species protected under the MBHCP. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The San Joaquin Valley was occupied by Native American groups for thousands of yeazs prior to ' settlement by non-Native American peoples. The Southern Valley Yokuts occupied the general region of the project site for approximately 2,000 yeazs. One large prehistoric site and eight isolates were found within the approximately 840 acres examined. Within the 840 acres examined, there are no cultural resources that aze listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Inventory of Historic Places, California State Historic Landmarks or the California Historic Resources Inventory. Checklist Responses Would the project: -, a) . - Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X15064. S? b) Cause a substantial adverse change. in the significance. of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~I 5064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any,human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact (a-d). Since the azea is rural in nature and the likelihood of the presence of cultural resources unknown, further technical studies will be conducted to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources. Such analysis should include field reconnaissance of the project site and literature review of archaeological, paleontological and historic resources. This information will be presented in the EIR and mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Existing Conditions The project site is located within an alluvial plain between the Coast Ranges to the west and the Siena Nevada to the east.. There are six active faults near the vicinity of the project site that are 44 Mictiae/ B/andman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc _, s- Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Discussion of Env/ronmental Evaluation capable of producing a seismic hazard. They are: the San Andreas; the. Siena Nevada; the Gazlock; the Breckenridge-Kern Canyon; the White Wolf; and the Pond Poso. The vicinity of the project site is considered to have a very low liquefaction potential due to a low groundwater table (greater than 50 feet below ground surface) and moderate penetration resistance of the subsurface soils. . In general, the upper native soils consist of 6 to 12 inches of very loose silty sand, silty clayey sand, clayey silty sand, sandy gravel, silty sand/sandy silt or firm silty sandy clay and silty clay. These soils are predominately intermixed with gravel, cobbles and boulders. These soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics and are highly compressible when saturated. Subsurface conditions encountered appeaz typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) ,Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the.most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or o, f, j`-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact (a, b, c, d). The project site is located in a seismically active area. According to the City of Bakersfield's General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these fault systems are the San Andreas; the Sierra Nevada; the Garlock; the Breckenridge-Kern Canyon; the White Wolf; and the Pond Poso. There are numerous additional faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield region that may Michael Brandman Associates 45 H:\Client (PN-.TN)\0216\02160027\LS\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IMtial Study or may not be active. Potential seismic hazards in the project area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and earthquake induced landslides. A technical study will be included in the EIR and mitigation measures, if necessary, ' will be recommended to reduce potential significant impacts. ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of . waste water? No Impact. The project will connect with sewer lines in the project vicinity. Therefore, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will be used for the project and na impacts related to support of such systems would' occur. 7. HAZARDS AND' HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Existing Conditions The soil conditions at the site with the exception of the loose surface soils, loosely placed fill material and existing development, may be conducive to the development of the project subject to review and approval of soils reports and grading plans approved by the Building Director. Accordingly, it is recommended that the surface soils be recompacted•to avoid high potentials for land subsidence. Minor to moderate slope instability is associated with the slope faces adjacent to the Kern River.. However, it is not anticipated that a catastrophic major slope failure will occur. Some minor to moderate slope failures may occur within the steep slopes during a seismic event. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. Tlie vicinity of the projectsite includes industrial activities that include the use of hazardous materials. It is recommended that if hydrocarbon contamination associated with abandoned wells on the property or the oil field operations~is encountered during development of the project, that the impacted soils should be properly removed. The presence of hydrocarbon contaminated soils at the former Trio Petroleum Inc. site has been identified and additional evaluation has been conducted. The results will be provided in the EIR. No additional areas of concern were identified on the site. 46 Michael Brandman Assoc/ales H:\Client (PN-.TN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 U[aft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ,~ ' C/ty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Checklist Responses ~ , Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Future on-site uses would stock or use common household solvents and cleaners, automotive fluids and chemicals and fertilizers used in landscaping. -These materials aze not expected to be supplied in a substantive quantity that would result in a significant hazard to the public. No uses aze proposed that would result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazazdous 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the preceding response, future onsite uses would not routinely store, use or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts related to reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would occur. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools within'/a mile of the project site and the project would not result in any uses that emit significant hazazdous emissions or require handling of lazge quantities of hazardous materials. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. As part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment that were prepared in 2003 and 2004, a search of governmental records containing lists of hazardous materials sites were conducted. Findings of the record searches will be presented in the EIR. Michael Brandman Associates 47 H:\C6ent (PN-IN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ,~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact (e, f). The project site is not located within two miles of a commercial airport or in the vicinity of a general aviation airport. The project site is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to an aviation safety hazard. ~ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project must provide acceptable access for emergency response and evaluation. Emergency access at the project site will be evaluated by the Bakersfield Police and Fire departments and the responses of those respective agencies will be included in the EIR. 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? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located near undeveloped hillside areas which may be subject to wildland fires. The potential risk of wildland fires will be evaluated by the Bakersfield Fire Department and any recommendations (e.g., fuel modification zones) will be incorporated into the EIR. 48 Mlchae/ Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-]N)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Ihsft IS Canyons 03-13.doc Cfty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions The two primary sources of surface water in the Bakersfield planning area are the Kern River and the Caliente Creek Stream Group. ,Metropolitan Bakersfield overlies a series of water bearing aquifers, which form part of a larger groundwater basin called the Southern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin. Natural groundwater recharge occurs from the following sources: natural recharge; river and canal seepage; reclaimed water; and spreading and banking. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact. The project will be subject tb federal water quality requirements during grading and construction. The Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402[p]) requires discharges of storm water associated with industrial and construction activity to be regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. NPDES compliance involves understanding the nature and feasibility of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for water quality control. - Additionally, the permit requires development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) emphasizing stormwater BMP's. Compliance with these required permitting procedures will ensure that the project will not violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. The project will also alter long-term water quality due to increased pollutants from residences and commercial uses. This increase in pollutants may be significant. A discussion of water quality impacts will be provided in the EIR. 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 ofpre- existing nearby wells would drop to d level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Potentially Significant Impact. The project is expected to be served.by the California Water Service Company (CWSC). CWSC will be consulted during preparation of the EIR to determine availability of water supplies. This information will be incorporated into the EIR along with any recommended mitigation measures. Michael Brandman Associates 49 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027US\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfield -The Canyons __ Discussion of Environmental Evaluation M/tlal Study ' c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ' d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ar 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 runo, fJ'water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Impact (c,d,e). The project will alter the drainage pattern in ' the local azea by replacing vacant land with impermeable surfaces. A drainage plan willbe prepared for the project and included in the EIR. A discussion of the increase in runoff and the impacts on existing drainage facilities will also be included in the E1R. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact.. Refer to Response Item 8.a. ~ Place housing within a 100 yearflood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? .. . No Impact. The project site is-not within a 100-year flood hazard azea as delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, flooding hazazds aze.considered to be less than '. significant at the project site. h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or . redirect flood flows? No Impact.- -Refer to response to Item 8(g). 50 ~ Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study D/scussion of Environmental Evaluation i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving , flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? • No Impact. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and EIR, the project site is not subject to inundation from the Lake Isabella Dam in the ,~ event of a severe earthquake collapsing the dam. As a result, the project would not be affected by flood inundation. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is located in an inland valley, a considerable distance • from the coastline or a large inland body of water, which precludes the hazard of a tsunami or seiche. There are no existing drainages in the vicinity that could carry a mudflow to the site. Therefore, site inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is highly unlikely, and project implementation would have no impact relative to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Existing Conditions The project site is located on approximately 890 acres of land that is predominantly open space, much of which has been disturbed by the construction ofhigh-voltage transmission lines and their continued maintenance, previous oil, sand and gravel operations, and use of off-road recreational vehicles by the public. The site is predominately surrounded by vacant land. Surrounding land uses include, open space to the south, northwest, north and northeast, and a closed landfill to the southwest. The portion of the site reserved for development consists of approximately 454 acres,. and approximately 110 acres of road alignments. The Kern River and Alfred Harrel Highway are located north, west, and east of the project site. Disturbance from the asphalt-concrete batch plant is still present but there is no equipment or other evidence of operation. Oil field development has been present on and nearby the site. Oil field development is still present to the south in the area of the road alignments. Additional development is present on the west and north sides of Alfred Harrell Highway. Residential development is also present to the southwest of Paladino Drive. Michael Brandman Associates 51 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is vacant and the proposed development would not encroach upon surrounding residential and other developed properties. There aze no established communities on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not physically divide the area's established community. b) ,Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but notlimited to-the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental efJ`ect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project requires the amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, amendment of the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Pazks and Trails Plan, rezoning, a Vesting Tentative Pazcel Map, and a vesting Tentative Tract Map. The proposed amendments to the General-Plan are not expected to result in significant laud use planning or compatibility impacts " because the project site is not directly located adjacent to sensitive land. uses, and the site has been planned for residential uses for over 10 yeazs. The proposed commercial uses are expected to provide support uses for the proposed residential uses. These support uses are expected to be compatible with residential uses. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community . conservation plan? _ Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area. Therefore, the project . proponent will be required to pay aone-time mitigation fee for preservation and - enhancement of habitat land: Payment of this fee, as mitigation, would ensure compliance with the MBHCP and result in a less than significant impact to those species covered under the MBHCP. Mlchae/ Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc :r ' ' C/ty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ,' ., 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The principal mineral resources under development within the planning azea of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan are oil, natural gas, and sand and gravel. The region is a major oil- producing azea. Oil fields and sand and gravel extraction areas have existed within the planning area. With the exception of the Kern Bluff Oil Field and a former sand and gravel extraction area, the majority of the planning area is undeveloped. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The principal mineral resources within the City's General Plan study area are oil, natural gas, sand and gravel. Although portions of the site have been used for oil production, these operations have been abandoned and are not considered a significant regional resource. No other mineral resources are known to occur ' within the project site. Therefore, the implementation of the project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or a mineral resource recovery site. b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, sand and gravel operations are concentrated mainly along the flood plains and alluvial fans of the Kern River. There are abandoned oil wells on the site, but there aze no extraction activities occurring at this time. Therefore, the project is not considered a locally important mineral extraction site and is not designated as such on any applicable plans. Therefore, no loss of such resources would occur. Michael Brandman Assoc/ales ~ H:\Client (PN-]N)\0216\02160027US\02160027 Ihaft LS Canyons 03-13.doc ~. J ' - Clty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study 11. NOISE Existing Conditions Sources of noise in the general vicinity of the project site would be from the following: off-highway vehicles, roadways, and occasional noise from residential sources and noise (corona dischazge hum) from the high-voltage electrical transmission lines during wet weather conditions. There aze no industrial facilities or airports in the vicinity of the project site that generate noise. Noise sensitive areas are typically residential areas, schools, convalescent hospitals and acute caze facilities, and pazks and recreational areas. Checklist Responses Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in arty applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of _ other agencies?- ,Potentially Sign cant Impact. The project could result in both short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would occur during project grading and construction, while long-term noise impacts would primarily occur from vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways. An acoustic analysis will be prepared and the fmdings will be included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be recommended, if necessary. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Although construction activities may result in some ground vibrations, construction methods requiring the use of heavy machinery with repetitive ground vibrations such as pile driving aze not expected to be required for - this project. The noise study will evaluate short-term noise impacts. ,No long-term impacts resulting in excessive groundborne vibration aze expected to occur. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response to Item l l.a. 54 Mlchae/ Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc `Y ~, C/ty of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response to Item 11(a). 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? No Impact. Refer to Response to Item 7(e). The project site is not within two miles of an airport or within an airport land use plan. Project implementation would not expose people to excessive noise levels caused by air traffic. ,~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would not expose people to excessive noise~levels caused by air traffic. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Existing Conditions The project site is currently undeveloped. There are no residences on the project site. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially Significant Impact. The project-will include the construction of 1,400 dwelling units as well as the construction of a commercial facility. The project would add to growth in the northeast portion of the City by the addition of new housing and the extension of infrastructure to the project site. This project will be analyzed in conjunction with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update. The EIR will evaluate the level of significance and present mitigation measures. Michael Brandman Associates 55 H:\CHent (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\LS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ,~ :~;, -~ City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ~% Discussion of Environmental Evaluation initial Study b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of , replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ~ No Impact (ti, c). The implementation of the project will not result in the removal or displacement of any houses or people. Therefore, no impact on housing or population is anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Existing Conditions Public services and facilities consists of the provision of these various services.from the closest station: fire and police protection services; provision of school facilities: elementary (public or private), junior high school (public or private), high school (public or private); domestic water service; natural gas; electricity; telephone. Because the project site is undeveloped, the demand for public services, depending on the type, is extremely minimal or non-existent. Checklist Responses a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause . sign cant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services? - " Fire protection? " "Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department provides fire protection services in the project azea. The Kern County Fire Department "provides service to unincorporated communities in Metropolitan Bakersfield and limited azeas within the City. The Bakersfield Fire Department has established a goal _ of providing an emergency response time of six minutes or less to all azeas of the City. There aze a number of goals and policies established by the recently.approved .Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which ensure that potentially significant impacts to fire~protection services would be reduced to less than significant levels. " Additionally, any increase in the need. for fire protection services is expected to be offset through increased property tax and sales tax revenues. However, the City Fire 56 Mtchae/ Brandman Assoc/ates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc .:. , ~~ ,, City of Bakersfle/d -The Canyons ' Initial Study Dlscusslon of Environmental Evaluation Department will b~ contacted to determine the need for any specific requirements associated with the project. Their findings and recommendations will be included in the EIR. Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Bakersfield maintains its own police department from its Truxtun Avenue headquarters. The Kern County Sheriff's Department provides service to unincorporated azeas of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The goal of the Bakersfield Police Department is to provide a staffing level of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. There aze a number of goals and policies established by the recently approved Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which ensure that potentially significant impacts to police services would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, any increase in the need for police services is expected to be offset through increased property tax and sales tax revenues. However, the City Police Department will be contacted to determine the need for any specific requirements associated with the project. Their findings and recommendations will be included in the EIR. Schools? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project will generate new . students in grades K-12. The EIR will contain information on school generation rates and impact fees. Parks? Potentially Significant Impact. The project would result in an increase in park use by the new residents. Per the General Plan, the City has established a goal of 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (2.5 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood pazks). The project is within the Northeast Bakersfield Specific Pazks and Trails Plan area which requires 2 acres per 1,000 population if trails are provided consistent with the Specific Plan. The project includes 3 public parks totaling 17.33 acres and a 28.18-acre semi-public recreation azea. In addition, the project would provide in-lieu fees for pazkland development. The EIR will discuss potential impacts to parks. Michael Brandman Associates 57 H:\Client (PN-JI~\0216\0216002TLS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ' ~/ :r. City of Bakersfield -The Canyons =~~ Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Other public facilities? Potentially Sign cant Impact. Potential impacts to any other public facilities will be reviewed and evaluated in the EIR, if determined to be significant. 14. RECREATION Existing Conditions Recreation and pazk facilities that.aze available.to the project site aze provided by the City of Bakersfield, various school districts, colleges, non-profit agencies, and private developers: Recreational facilities are generally classified as either local parks consisting ofmini-parks, neighborhood parks, and community park centers, or as regional parks. The Kern River County Pazk, a significant regional~recreational facility consisting of approximately 1,336 acres, which includes .Hart Memorial Park, Kern River Soccer Fields, California Living Museum, Lake Ming, and a day and overnight. campgrounds;. is located 0.25 mile north and east of the project site. Checklist Responses , Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? . Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response to Item 13(a) (Parks), above. . .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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes the development and construction of new recreational facilities. Impacts of such facilities will be analyzed along with project impacts of the entire project, in the EIR. No adverse impacts associated with recreational facilities are expected to occur. 5g Mlchae/ Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-Jl~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 IhaR IS Canyons 03-13.doc .r,, ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Existing Conditions The only roadway that connects to the project site is comprised of an asphaltic concrete road, running north to the south central portion of the site, then trending north-south for approximately one-quarter mile onto the site. Checklist Responses Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traj~c 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)? , Potentially Significant Impact. The project would result in an increase in traffic in the project vicinity. A traffic impact study will be prepazed to determine project and cumulative impacts, appropriate mitigation measures and levels of significance a$er mitigation measures. The EIR will include existing traffic volumes, project trip generation, and analysis of future impacts at azea intersections. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ` Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response to Item 15(a), above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project does not involve any uses that would result in a change in air traffic patterns.' d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on a review of the preliminary site plan, the . project does not include any hazardous features. An analysis of the project-generated traffic on the local circulation system will be evaluated and included in the E1R. Michael Brandman Associates 59 H:\Client (PN-]l~\0216\02160027\LS\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc ~; -~ City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Dlscuss-on of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes two vehicular access points that will connect the project site to major arterials located in the~vicinity of the project site. The project will be evaluated for impacts on access emergency service providers. ~~ ,~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Adequate parking capacity will be provided to the residential portion of the project in garages and on adjacent streets. When detailed plans for the commercial portion of the project are developed, a review of the proposed parking and comparison with the Bakersfield Municipal Code will be required. Such plans will be required to show adequate parking prior to approval. ~ Conflict with applicable policies, plans, `or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any uses that would interfere with existing policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. A review of applicable alternative transportation policies will be included in the EIR. 16. .UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing Conditions Utilities consists of the provision of services such as domestic water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage collection and discharge facilities, and solid waste collection and disposal. • Because the project site is undeveloped, these facilities do not currently exist on the project site. Checklist Responses Would-the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality . Control Board? Potentially Significant Impact.: The project would increase the need for wastewater treatment. The amount of wastewater generated and treatment capacity will be incorporated into the EIR. :,-, 60 Michael BrBndman Associates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027US\02160027 Ihaft IS Canyons 03-13.doc :, s~" ,;, ' Clty.of Bakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ,' 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 sign jrcant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated under Response to Item 8(b), the water agency providing service for the project azea will be contacted to determine potential impacts on water service. This information will be presented in the EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which, could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 8(c), (d), and (e): A drainage plan will be prepared and a description of facility upgrades will be included in the EIR. Any impacts associated with construction of such facilities, and mitigation measures, if necessary will also be explained. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact. In October 2001, Governor Davis signed into law. two bills requiring cities and counties to consider the availability of water supplies when making certain types of land use decisions. Senate Bill (SB) 221 (codified as Government Code Section 66473.7) prohibits cities and counties from approving new subdivisions creating more than 500 new residential units unless it can be shown that an adequate water supply is available to serve the new residents. Senate Bill (SB) 610 (codified as Water Code Sections 10910-10912) requires a city or county that determines a project is subject to CEQA to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. The assessment is to include the following: 1. Discussion with regazd to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water yeazs during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing. Michael Brandman Associates 61 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.dac r.• "~i City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Discussion of Environmental Evaluation initial Study ~ - 2. Identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water ' service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. 3. Description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights or water service contracts. 4. Water supply entitlements, water rights or water service contracts shall be demonstrated by the following: a. Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. b, Copies of capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. c. Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. - d. Any necessary regulatory approvals that is required in order to be able.to convey or deliver the water supply. - 5. Identification of other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water . rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system. 6. If groundwater is included for the supply for a project, the following . additional information is required: a. Review of any information contained in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) relevant to the identified water supply for the project. _ ~ b: Description of any groundwater basin(s) from which the project will be supplied. Adjudicated basins must have a copy of the court order or decree adopted and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system has the legal right to pump. For non- adjudicated basins, information on whether the DWR has identified the basin as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of Department of Water Resources (DWR) that characterizes the condition of the basin, 'and a detailed description of gy M/chae/ Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-.TN)\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc .~.' f~ City ofBakersfield -The Canyons ' Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluatfon the efforts being undertaken in the basin to eliminate the long-term, overdraft condition. c. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system for the past 5 years from any groundwater-basin which the'project will be supplied: Based on ~~ information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. d. Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by the public water system from any groundwater basin which the project will be supplied. Based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. e. Analysis of sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin(s) from which the project will be supplied. f. The water supply assessment shall be included in any environmental document prepared for the project. g. May include an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document. A determination shall be made whether the projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of. the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. . The need for the project to comply with the requirements of SB 610 will be determined. A discussion of water supply sufficiency will be included in the EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response to Item 16(a). f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City Solid Waste Division and contracted haulers are responsible for solid waste collection. There are three County landfills that serve the waste disposal needs of Metropolitan Bakersfield. Bena Landfill is M-chael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JI~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 haft IS Canyons 03-13.dce 63 ,«. .r~~ ' City of Bakersfield -The Canyons ~~ Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study located about 18 miles east of the City in Kern County and is the primary landfill serving Metropolitan Bakersfield. This landfill has a permitted capacity of approximately 39 years and based on future needs, may include expansion to have a lifetime of 75 years if fully permitted. The project would generate additional solid waste in the region. However, since there is sufficient capacity, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on area landfills. " ~ Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will be served by one of the waste haulers under contract to the City's Solid Waste Division. All waste haulers are required to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste and no significant impacts related to solid waste compliance will occur. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE „ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, - substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,.reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? , - Potentially Significant Impact. Response to Item 4.a indicates the project could have an impact on biological. resources. A biological study will be conducted for the project and the evaluation will be included in the EIR. Additionally, as indicated in Response to Item 5(a) through (c), a cultural resource analysis will be conducted and - findings will be included in the EIR. A paleontology study will also be prepared. Mitigation measures will be recommended, where applicable, to reduce potential significant impacts. 6.{ ~ Mlchae/ Brandman Assoc/ates H:\Client (PN-JIB\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc rr ~ .~~ R City of Bakersfield -The Canyons Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially Significant-Impact. A review of cumulative impacts for each topical environmental issue addressed in the EIR will be provided. A determination of significance will be made for each issue. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the construction and operation of a commercial use and development of a residential community -would not have significant adverse impacts on people residing and working in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area or elsewhere. However, potential impacts will be analyzed and discussed in the EIR along with a summary of fmdings and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Michael Brandman Associates 65 H:\Client (PN-Jl~\0216\02160027\IS\02160027 Draft IS Canyons 03-13.doc