The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDraft EIR February 16, 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report Bakersfield Commons Project GPA/ZC 06-1877 Prepared for: The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Attn: Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210 Prepared by: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 11849 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310.473.1600 Fax: 310.473.9336 West Los Angeles 11849 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 101 Los Angeles, California 90064 Phone 310.473.1600 Fax 310.473.9336 Agoura Hills 30851 Agoura Road Suite 210 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Phone 818.735.8838 Fax 818.735.8858 San Francisco 115 Sansome Street Suite 1003 San Francisco, California 94612 Phone 415.762.7680 Fax 415.956.9820 Petaluma 179 H Street Petaluma, California 94952 Phone 707.283.4040 Fax 707.283.4041 Mammoth Lakes P.O. Box 100-PMB #581 Mammoth Lakes, California 93546 Phone 760.924.0337 Santa Clarita 27413 Tourney Road Suite 120 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Phone 661.260.1411 Fax Fax 661.260.1414 Downtown Los Angeles 523 W. 6th Street Suite 1134 Los Angeles, California 90014 Phone 213.417.4400 Fax 213.488.1012 BAKERSFIELD COMMONS PROJECT GPA/ZC 06-1877 Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared For: The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301-5210 Prepared By: February 16, 2010 This document is prepared on paper with 100% recycled content. Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page i GPA/ZC # 06-1877 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ ...................................................................... I-1 A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR ...................................................................................................I-1 B. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA .........................................................................................I-2 C. SCOPING PROCESS ............................................................... ........................................I-3 D. ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR ......................................................................................I-4 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... II-1 A. PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................... ........................... II-1 B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... II-3 C. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ...................................... II-9 D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ................... II-10 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................. ................ III-1 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ...................................................................... III-1 B. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ......................................... ...................................... III-8 C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................. III-8 D. PROJECT PHASING & CONSTRUCTION .............................................................. III-31 E. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................... III-32 F. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ................................................................................... III-33 G. RELATED PROJECTS & BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS ......................... III-34 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................................... IV-1 A. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................. ................... IV.A-1 B. URBAN DECAY ....................................................................................................... IV.B-1 C. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................... .......................................................... IV.C-1 D. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................... IV.D-1 E. GEOLOGY/SOILS .................................................................................................... IV.E-1 F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................... ........................... IV.F-1 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page ii GPA/ZC # 06-1877 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................... ................................ IV.G-1 H. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ IV.H-1 I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................. ................................................................. IV.I-1 J. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... IV.J-1 K. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................... IV.K-1 L. NOISE ...................................................... .................................................................. IV.L-1 M. POPULATION & HOUSING .................................................................................. IV.M-1 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................. IV.N-1 O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................... ........................ IV.O-1 V. GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES ..................................................................................... V-1 A. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ................................... V-1 B. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................... V-4 C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT ................... V-8 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................... VI-1 A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ............................................. ............................................. VI-7 B. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................... VI-13 C. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ZONING ALTERNATIVE ............................................. VI-21 D. RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... VI-30 E. INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... VI-38 F. ALTERNATIVE SITE ..................................................... .................................................. VI-46 G. ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ................................................................. VI-53 H. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ................................................... VI-62 VII. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IMPACTS ............................................ VII-1 VIII. PREPARERS OF THE EIR AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................... VIII-1 IX. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... .................... IX-1 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page iii GPA/ZC # 06-1877 FIGURES Figure Page Figure III-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ III-3 Figure III-2 Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity Map ................................. ........................................... III-5 Figure III-3 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................... III-13 Figure III-4 Existing and Proposed Land Use ................................................................................. III-15 Figure III-5 Existing and Proposed Zoning ..................................................................................... III-17 Figure III-6 Related Projects Map ........................................................................ ........................... III-36 Figure IV.B-1 Lifestyle Market Area & Regional Average Household Income ............................... IV.B-9 Figure IV.C-1 Location of Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments ........................................ IV.C-13 Figure IV.C-2 Location of Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments ........................................ IV.C-15 Figure IV.C-3 Westside Parking Segment Analysis -Location of Westside Parking Segments ... IV.C-17 Figure IV.C-4 Regional Transportation Impact Fee Map ............................................... ................ IV.C-31 Figure IV.C-5 Project Trip Distribution .......................................................................................... IV.C-45 Figure IV.D-1 Views of the Project Site from Brimhall Road .......................................................... IV.D-5 Figure IV.D-2 Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road (West-Facing) ....................... ............. IV.D-7 Figure IV.D-3 Views of the Project Site from Windsong Street ...................................................... IV.D-9 Figure IV.D-4 Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road (East-Facing) .................................... IV.D-11 Figure IV.D-5 Views of the Project Site from Lowe’s Property ..................................................... IV.D-13 Figure IV.D-6 Views of the Project Site from the Kern River ........................................................ IV.D-15 Figure IV.E-1 Regional Geology ................................... .................................................................. IV.E-5 Figure IV.E-2 Area Fault Map ................................................................................................ .......... IV.E-7 Figure IV.E-3 Isabella Dam Inundation Area ................................................................................. IV.E-13 Figure IV.F-1 Proposed Retention Areas ........................................................................................ IV.F-17 Figure IV.G-1 Site Features .................................................................... ........................................... IV.G-3 Figure IV.H-1 Lower Bakersfield Arch ............................................................................................. IV.H-3 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page iv GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Figure IV.H-2 Fruitvale Oil Field ...................... ................................................................................ IV.H-5 Figure IV.I-1 Site Features ................................................................................... ........................... IV.I-11 Figure IV.L-1 Noise Monitoring Locations .................................................................................... IV.L-13 Figure IV.O-1 Existing Utilities and Easements in Project Area ...................................................... IV.O-3 Figure VI-1 Alternative G, Alternative Roadway Alignment ............................... ........................... VI-55 TABLES Table Page Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ................. II-57 Table III-1 Proposed Project Development Summary ..................................................................... III-9 Table III-2 Existing and Proposed Land Use and Zoning ................................................. ............. III-11 Table III-3 Related Projects List .................................................................................................... III-35 Table IV.A-1 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning ........................................................... IV.A-10 Table IV.A-2 Proposed Land Use and Zoning ........................................................ ....................... IV.A-20 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan ............. IV.A-22 Table IV.B-1 Square Footage by BOE Category ............................................................................. IV.B-6 Table IV.B-2 Estimated Sales by Retail Category in 2009 Dollars ................................................. IV.B-7 Table IV.B-3 Cumulative Retail Development Projects In or Near the Lifestyle Market Areas ............................................................................................ IV.B-11 Table IV.B-4 Potential Retail Sales Impacts Upon Stabilization in 2009 Dollars, In Millions ..... IV.B-14 Table IV.C-1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections (2000 Highway Capacity Manual Operations Method) ........................................... IV.C-21 Table IV.C-2 Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections (2000 Highway Capacity Manual Unsignalized Method) ....................................... IV.C-22 Table IV.C-3 Peak Period Calculated Capacities for Arterial and Collector Street Segments ...... IV.C-22 Table IV.C-4 Level of Service Definitions for Freeway Segments at 65 MPH ............................. IV.C-24 Table IV.C-5 Intersections Currently Operating at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours ............ IV.C-25 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page v GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table IV.C-6 Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) -Metro Phase IV Fee Per Unit (After First Year) ..................................................................................................... IV.C-30 Table IV.C-7 Future without Project (2015) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours ................................................................... IV.C-33 Table IV.C-8 Future without Project (2035) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours ................................................................... IV.C-36 Table IV.C-9 Future without Project (2015) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse .................................................................................................. IV.C-36 Table IV.C-10 Future without Project (2035) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse ........................................................................................... ....... IV.C-37 Table IV.C-11 Preliminary Building Program ................................................................................. IV.C-39 Table IV.C-12 Trip Generation Rates .............................................................................................. IV.C-40 Table IV.C-13 Trip Generation Estimates – Opening Year (Phase I – Year 2015) ................... ...... IV.C-41 Table IV.C-14 Trip Generation Estimates – Phases I & II – Year 2035 .......................................... IV.C-42 Table IV.C-15 Trip Generation Estimates – Full Buildout (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035) ........... IV.C-43 Table IV.C-16 Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak HoursWithout Mitigation .......................................... IV.C-48 Table IV.C-17 Future with Project (Phase I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation...................................................... IV.C-50 Table IV.C-18 Future with Project (Phases I, II & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation ................................................................... IV.C-53 Table IV.C-19 Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation ......................................................................... ......................... IV.C-56 Table IV.C-20 Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation .................................................................................................. IV.C-58 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page vi GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table IV.C-21 Future with Project (Phases I, II & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation .................................................................................................. IV.C-60 Table IV.C-22 Regional Transportation Impact Fee – After First Year for Each Project Phase ..... IV.C-71 Table IV.C-23 Monthly Totals Of Off-Site Construction Trips ...................................................... IV.C-73 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies .......... IV.C-77 Table IV.D-1 Proposed Project Consistency with Relevant MBGP Goals and Policies Related to Light and Glare ....................................................................................... IV.D-26 Table IV.E-1 Regional Faults .......................................................... ................................................ IV.E-4 Table IV.E-2 Peak Ground Acceleration ......................................................................................... IV.E-9 Table IV.E-3 IBC (2006) Seismic Parameters ............................................................................... IV.E-12 Table IV.E-4 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies .................. IV.E-20 Table IV.G-1 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies .................. IV.G-26 Table IV.J-1 Previously Identified Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area .......... IV.J-3 Table IV.K-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................... ......... IV.K-3 Table IV.K-2 2008 Estimated Daily Regional Emissions .............................................................. IV.K-14 Table IV.K-3 Summary of Ambient Air Air Quality in the Proposed Project Vicinity ....................... IV.K-16 Table IV.K-4 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions -Existing Project Site Land Uses -2007 . IV.K-18 Table IV.K-5 Project ISR Construction Emissions Reduction Strategies ...................................... IV.K-33 Table IV.K-6 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction ............................................................................................................. IV.K-36 Table IV.K-7 Summary of Dispersion Modeling Results -Construction ...................................... IV.K-39 Table IV.K-8 Predicted Proposed Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................... IV.D-40 Table IV.K-9 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Operations (Includes Required ISR Reductions) ............................ IV.K-42 Table IV.K-10 Project Maximum CO Concentrations ..................................................................... IV.K-44 Table IV.K-11 Estimated Proposed Project Concurrent Construction and Operational Emissions .............................. ............................................................... IV.K-45 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page vii GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table IV.K-12 Estimated Health Risks .................. .......................................................................... IV.K-47 Table IV.K-13 Predicted Proposed Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Business-as-Usual) ..................................................... IV.K-49 Table IV.K-14 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans ...................... ............................................................. IV.K-53 Table IV.K-15 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the City of Bakersfield General Plan Conservation Element ........................................................................ IV.K-57 Table IV.K-16 Estimated VERA Emissions Offsets for Construction ............................................ IV.K-62 Table IV.K-17 Estimated VERA Emissions Emissions Offsets for Project Operations (Operational and Area Sources) ............................................................................... IV.K-62 Table IV.K-18 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction After Mitigation ............................................................................ ...... IV.K-63 Table IV.L-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels ............................................................. IV.L-2 Table IV.L-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ............................. IV.L-4 Table IV.L-3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ................................................................... IV.L-5 Table IV.L-4 Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments (in dBA) ................. IV.L-7 Table IV.L-5 Hourly Noise Level Performance Standards ................................... ........................... IV.L-8 Table IV.L-6 Existing Daytime Noise Levels Onsite and at Sensitive Off-site Locations ............ IV.L-12 Table IV.L-7 Existing (2009) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite ...................................................... IV.L-16 Table IV.L-8 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels ........................................................... IV.L-21 Table IV.L-9 Exterior Noise at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction ........ IV.L-22 Table IV.L-10 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................... ......................... IV.L-24 Table IV.L-11 Vibration Levels at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction .... IV.L-25 Table IV.L-12 Predicted Future (Phase I -2015) Roadway Noise Levels Off-Site ........................ IV.L-27 Table IV.L-13 Predicted Future (Phase 2 -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Off-Site ........................ IV.L-28 Table IV.L-14 Predicted Future (Phase 3 -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Off-Site ........................ IV.L-30 Table IV.L-15 Future Project Perimeter Noise Exposure ................................................. ............... IV.L-32 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page viii GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table IV.L-16 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase I -2015) ........................................................................................................ IV.L-39 Table IV.L-17 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase II -2035) ...................................................................................................... IV.L-40 Table IV.L-18 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase III -2035) ..................................................................................................... IV.L-42 Table IV.M-1 County and City Population Forecasts and Extrapolated Housing Predictions ........ IV.M-5 Table IV.M-2 RHNAAP Housing Allocation for County ...................................... ......................... IV.M-6 Table IV.M-3 RHNAAP Housing Allocation for City .................................................................... IV.M-8 Table IV.M-4 Proposed Population Generation ............................................................................. IV.M-13 Table IV.M-5 Comparison of Proposed Population Generation to City Forecasts ........................ IV.M-14 Table IV.M-6 Comparison of Proposed Project to Applicable MBGP Housing Element Policy .. IV.M-16 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth .......................................... .................... IV.M-19 Table IV.M-8 Projected Cumulative Housing Growth .................................................................. IV.M-23 Table IV.N-1 Average Response Times for the Bakersfield Police Department ............................. IV.N-2 Table IV.N-2 Beat 3 Crime Statistics – June -August 2009 ............................................................ IV.N-3 Table IV.N-3 Student Generation Rate -Elementary School ........................................................ IV.N-N-20 Table IV.N-4 Students Generated at Columbia Elementary School .............................................. IV.N-20 Table IV.N-5 Student Generation Rate -Junior High School ........................................................ IV.N-22 Table IV.N-6 Students Generated at Fruitvale Junior High School ............................................... IV.N-22 Table IV.N-7 Student Generation Rate -High School ............................. ...................................... IV.N-23 Table IV.N-8 Students Generated at Liberty High School ............................................................. IV.N-24 Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation ..................................................... IV.N-25 Table IV.N-10 Recreational and Park Facilities Serving the Project Site .................. ...................... IV.N-31 Table IV.O-1 Proposed Project Wastewater Flows .......................................................................... IV.O-6 Table IV.O-2 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP ....................... IV.O-8 Table IV.O-3 Cumulative Wastewater Generation ........................................................................ IV.O-10 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page ix GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table IV.O-4 Future Water Demands by Year .............................................................................. IV.O-18 Table IV.O-5 2030 Projected Sources of Water Supply within the City of Bakersfield ................ IV.O-19 Table IV.O-6 Estimated Past and Current Water Demand ............................................................. IV.O-20 Table IV.O-7 Normal Year, Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year Assessment in Acre-Feet ............ IV.O-23 Table IV.O-8 Proposed Project Water Use .................................................................................... IV.O-28 Table IV.O-9 Supply and Demand Comparison in Acre-Feet per Year ........................................ IV.O-29 Table IV.O-10 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP ..................... IV.O-30 Table IV.O-11 Cumulative Water Generation ................................................................................. IV.O-31 Table IV.O-12 Estimated Project Operational Solid Waste Generation .......................................... IV.O-39 Table IV.O-13 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP ..................... IV.O-39 Table IV.O-14 Cumulative Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................ IV.O-40 Table IV.O-15 Proposed Project Demand for Electricity ................................................................ IV.O-48 Table IV.O-16 Cumulative Electricity Generation ............................................... ........................... IV.O-49 Table IV.N-17 Proposed Project Demand for Natural Gas .............................................................. IV.O-55 Table IV.N-18 Cumulative Natural Gas Generation ........................................................................ IV.O-57 Table VI-1 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................... .................................. VI-7 Table VI-2 Comparison of Alternative B: Reduced Intensity and the Proposed Project .............. VI-13 Table VI-3 Comparison of Alternative C: Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project .............................................................................................. VI-21 Table VI-4 Comparison of Alternative D: Residential Alternative and the Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ .. VI-30 Table VI-5 Comparison of Alternative E: Industrial Alternative and the Proposed Project ...................................................................................................... .... VI-38 Table VI-6 Comparison of Alternative F: Alternative Site and the Proposed Project .................. VI-46 Table VI-7 Comparison of Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment and the Proposed Project .......................................................................................................... VI-53 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison .......................... ................................................................... VI-63 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Page x GPA/ZC # 06-1877 APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover) APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX B: COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE NOP PERIOD APPENDIX C: LETTERS FROM PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY AGENCIES APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX E: ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING ANALYSIS APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC STUDY PART 1 -TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC STUDY PART 2 -TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX APPENDIX G: GEOLOGIC AND SOILS STUDY APPENDIX H: WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX I: DRAINAGE STUDY APPENDIX J: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX K: OIL AND MINERAL RESOURCES IMPACT STUDY APPENDIX L: BIOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX M: CULTURAL RESOURCES AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEY APPENDIX N: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AND EVALUATION OF CA-KER-7285 APPENDIX O: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX P: SCREENING-LEVEL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX Q: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX R: WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX S: CONCEPT INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-1 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR The City of Bakersfield (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bakersfield Commons Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043). The Bakersfield Commons Project (Project) (General Plan Amendment/Zone Change [GPA/ZC] 06-1877) proposes the development of a pedestrianoriented community with retail, theater, office, and residential uses. At proposed Project buildout in 2035, a total of 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, 600,000 square feet of office uses and 80 single-and 345 multi-family residential units would be developed at the Project site. The proposed Project would be phased as described in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting. This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Content of an EIR), and Section 15161 (Project EIR). The EIR has been prepared as a project EIR, addressing the environmental effects of the proposed Project including the General Plan amendment (GPA), zone change, land divisions, development plans and agreements and other necessary entitlements described in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting. Since this document is a project EIR, no additional or subsequent environmental document is required for Project approval. In accordance with CEQA Section 15121, the primary purpose of this EIR is to: 1) provide decision makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with development of the site; 2) identify ways to minimize the significant effects; and 3) describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could potentially reduce adverse environmental impacts while still achieving the objectives of the proposed Project. The City will utilize the information in this EIR to make decisions regarding the proposed Project. When necessary, mitigation measures are provided in order to reduce the potential significance of impacts resulting from the proposed Project. In addition, this EIR is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed Project. The City, as the proposed Project’s CEQA Lead Agency, has the principal responsibility of processing and reviewing the proposed Project. Other public agencies that may use this EIR in their decision-making or permit processes will consider the information contained in this EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Potential environmental impacts are not always mitigable to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency wishes to approve a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-2 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 unavoidable impacts), the agency shall, per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopt a “statement of overriding considerations” specifying the reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. B. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA This Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which defines the standards for EIR adequacy as follows: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. The Draft EIR is subject to a 45-day public review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. In accordance with the provision of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City, serving as the CEQA Lead Agency, will: (1) publish a notice of availability of the Draft EIR in the Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation; and (2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse. (Proof of publication is available at the offices of the Lead Agency.) Any public agency or member of the public desiring to comment on the Draft EIR must submit their comments in writing to the individual identified on the document’s NOC prior to the end of the public review period. During the public review period, the City will hold a public hearing regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The public will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR at the public hearing. Such comments shall be recorded and shall have the same standing and response requirements as written comments provided during the public review period. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency will proceed to evaluate and prepare responses to all relevant oral and written comments received from both citizens and public agencies during the public review period. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties, and revisions to the Draft EIR (if any) made as a result of such comments. After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments will be provided to the respective commenting agency or commenting public. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-3 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 C. SCOPING PROCESS In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and interested parties to participate in the environmental process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, an effort was made to contact various Federal, State, regional and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the project. This included the distribution of an Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) as well as the City holding a public scoping meeting on April 24, 2007. Additionally, public service and utility agencies were contacted regarding existing and future resources that the Project might utilize. Correspondence from these agencies is provided in Appendix C. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that a number of environmental issue areas potentially might be impacted by the proposed Project. As a result, the Initial Study determined that the Draft EIR should address the proposed Project’s potential significant impacts on a variety of environmental issue areas that are addressed in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts associated with Agriculture and Recreation. Therefore, these issues are not examined in this Draft EIR. The rationale for the finding that no significant impacts would occur for these issues is provided in the proposed Project’s Initial Study, attached as Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR. Notice of Preparation Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public requesting such notice for a 30-day period commencing April 6, 2007 and ending on May 7, 2007. The purpose of the NOP was to formally convey that the City would be preparing a Draft EIR for the proposed Project that, as the proposed Project’s CEQA Lead Agency, the City was soliciting input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The Initial Study was circulated with the NOP. The NOP, Initial Study, and comment letters received during the NOP comment period are provided in Appendices A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, and B, Comments Received During the NOP Period, of this EIR. During the 30-day comment period, nine (9) letters were received. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-4 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Early Consultation (Scoping) During the NOP circulation period, the City announced its intent to prepare a Draft EIR in The Bakersfield Californian on April 4, 2007 as well as on the bulletin board of the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department -Planning Division. Additionally, the City distributed the NOP to responsible and affected agencies and other interested parties, and held a public scoping meeting. The scoping meeting was held on April 24, 2007. The meeting was held with the specific intent of affording interested individuals/groups and public agencies a forum in which to present input directly to the Lead Agency in an effort to assist in further refining the intended scope and focus of the EIR, as described in the NOP and Initial Study. No comments on the proposed Project were submitted at the scoping meeting. D. ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR The content and organization of this Draft EIR are designed to meet the current requirements of the CEQA statute and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR is organized as described below: • Section I, INTRODUCTION, provides CEQA compliance information. • Section II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, provides a brief project description and summary of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. • Section III, PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMETAL SETTING, provides a detailed project description indicating proposed Project location, background and history; proposed Project characteristics, phasing, and objectives; and the discretionary actions required to implement the Project as proposed. • Section IV, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, provides a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, potential Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, cumulative impacts, and unavoidable adverse impacts, if any. The analysis of each environmental category is organized as follows: o “Introduction” describes the purpose and content of the section; o “Environmental Setting” describes the physical conditions that exist at the time the proposed Project’s NOP was issued and that may influence or affect the issue under investigation including a discussion of the existing regulatory framework as applicable; o “Environmental Impacts” includes a discussion of the methodology and the thresholds that are the basis used to determine if potential Project impacts are significant as defined by CEQA. A resource for these thresholds is Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR, Sections 15000-15387). This component of each environmental analysis also City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-5 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 includes a description of the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed Project is implemented; o “Cumulative Impacts” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur with the proposed Project, together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects; o “Mitigation Measures” are those specific measures that may be required of the proposed Project to avoid a potentially significant adverse impact; minimize a significant adverse impact; rectify a significant adverse impact by restoration; reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment; and o “Level of Significance After Mitigation” discusses whether the proposed Project and the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts can be reduced to levels that are considered less than significant. • Section V, GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES, discusses significant environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project, should it be implemented and discusses any potential growth inducing impacts of the Project. • Section VI, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project or to the location of the Project that could feasibly attain the basic Project objectives. • Section VII, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MITIGATION FOR TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC, describes the environmental impacts for the mitigation measures required to reduce transportation/traffic impacts. • Section VIII, PREPARERS OF THE EIR AND PERSONS CONSULTED, identifies those individuals that contributed to the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as all Federal, State, or local agencies, other organizations and individuals consulted consulted in the preparation of the EIR. • Section IX, REFERENCES, identifies the technical documents and various sources used to prepare the environmental analysis section of the Draft EIR City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project I. Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report Page I-6 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This Draft EIR includes the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed Project and 19 appendices, namely: • Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS); • Appendix B: Comments Received During the NOP Period; • Appendix C: Letters from Public Service and Utility Agencies; • Appendix D: Economic Impact Analysis; • Appendix E: Artificial Lighting Analysis; • Appendix F: Traffic Study; • Appendix G: Geologic and Soils Study; • Appendix H: Water Quality Assessment; • Appendix I: Drainage Study; • Appendix J: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; • Appendix K: Oil and Mineral Resources Impact Study; • Appendix L: Biological Site Assessment; • Appendix M: Cultural Resources and Paleontological Survey; • Appendix N: Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285; • Appendix O: Air Quality Analysis; • Appendix P: Health Risk Assessment; • Appendix Q: Noise Impact Analysis; • Appendix R: Water Supply Assessment; and • Appendix S: Concept Infrastructure Analysis. Bakersfield Commons Project II. Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. PROJECT SUMMARY Project Site History The Project site, approximately 255 acres, was historically occupied by native rangeland until at least 1947. Farm related structures were noted at the site since at least 1915. An oil refinery facility (Sunland Oil Refinery) was located on the portion of the site located east of Coffee Road by at least 1946, and possibly as early as 1937. The Sunland Oil Refinery facility expanded from its original location southeast of the intersection of Coffee Road and the BNSF railroad tracks, incorporating areas north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks and west of Coffee Road. The Sunland Oil Refinery ceased operations by the mid 1990s, with the demolition of most above ground features. Existing Conditions The Project site has existing uses which include a trucking company (Pan Pacific Petroleum [Pan]) and office uses currently occupied by ConocoPhillips. Pan is located east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway within an approximately six acre portion of the Project site. Pan’s operations include an approximately 1,400-square-foot office building, truck repair and maintenance facility and parking area for its trucks. ConocoPhillips, located in the northeast corner of the Project site east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF Railway, operates out of an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces. Additionally, the Site is occupied with a former refinery and associated facilities, petroleum hydrocarbon remediation area, City water retention areas, transmission towers and two active oil wells. Proposed Development The proposed Project involves a 255-acre mixed-use development consisting of mixed-use commercial (proposed lifestyle center), general commercial (proposed office development), low and high density residential uses as further described in detail in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. The proposed Project is intended to create a pedestrian-oriented community with retail, theater, office, and residential uses. The Project proposes the development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses, comprising a total of 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses. In addition, the Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units consisting of 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family units. The Applicant has City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 identified retail uses to include an urban, upscale lifestyle retail center west of Coffee Road and community-serving retail east of Coffee Road. Lifestyle centers cater to the retail needs and lifestyle pursuits of consumers in the market area, and typically have an open-air configuration, landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas, and include at least 50,000 square feet of retail space occupied by upscale national chain specialty stores in addition to local independent specialty stores. Lifestyle centers typically contain one or more restaurants, a multiplex cinema, and reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. The Project would also provide a network of landscaped bike trails and pedestrian walkways, as appropriate, to link adjoining neighborhoods. Project construction is is proposed to occur in three phases which will commence after Project approval and continue until Project buildout. The following three phases are proposed: I. Phase I development in 2015 would consist of approximately 200,000 square feet of office uses and 800,000 square feet of retail and theater uses ready for occupancy; II. Phase II development, anticipated to be complete between 2025 and 2035, would consist of an additional 200,000 square feet of office uses and 600,000 square feet of retail uses ready for occupancy; and III. Phase III development would achieve project completion at full buildout in 2035 would consist of the completion of approximately 200,000 square feet of office uses and development of the 345 multi-family and 80 single-family residential units. The existing uses on site associated with Pan Pacific Petroleum and ConocoPhillips would be demolished as part of the Project. The existing on-site active oil wells, petroleum hydrocarbon remediation facilities, City water retention areas, and transmission towers would remain on site. The City is the Lead Agency for purposes of complying with CEQA and is the primary public agency responsible for approving projects on these properties. However, this Draft EIR may be used by various governmental decision-makers for discretionary permits and actions that are necessary or may be requested in connection with the Project, as well as any other discretionary permits and actions that may be identified during the environmental review and entitlement process. The primary discretionary action necessary for the Project is approval of the Bakersfield Commons Project. Approvals required for the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: • General Plan Amendments; • Zone Change approvals; • Development Agreement; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Subdivision approvals; • Site Plan Review and/or Planned Commercial Development and Planned Unit Development approvals; • Community Facilities and/or Assessment District approvals; • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) review/approvals regarding railroad crossings and potential electrical substation; • Encroachment Permits (BNSF Railway, City of Bakersfield, and others as applicable); • Grading and Building Permits; and • Comprehensive Sign Plan. Overall, the Project’s conceptual site plan reflects policies set forth in the City’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which addresses promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. The proposed Project’s mix of uses presents a “main street” concept designed to generate activity traditionally associated with a “main street”. Retail functions would be developed to promote promote a desirable urban scale and character that encourages social, cultural, recreational, and civic interaction within the community. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Based on the project objectives, several alternatives were considered and evaluated in this Draft EIR. These alternatives are summarized below and further analyzed in Section VI, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts. As noted in Section V, General Impact Categories, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to transportation/traffic, air quality (i.e., odor), and noise. For transportation, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, at a project and cumulative level, at two intersections under the additional analysis criteria requested by the City. Further, during the three Phases of Project development, between two and four street segments would experience significant and unavoidable impacts at a project and cumulative level. Regarding air quality (i.e., odor) issues, due to past odor complaints documented by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District stemming from the nearby Big West refinery, a significant impact associated with objectionable odors would occur at the proposed on-site residential uses despite the fact that the area’s prevailing winds are from the northwest and the Project site is located west of the potential odor City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 sources. Regarding noise, significant project-level operational noise impacts are expected at two roadway segments during Phase II and Phase III. Significant cumulative noise impacts are expected during Phase II and Phase III at one roadway segment. Alternative A: No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that no project is approved and that no additional development occurs on the Project site. In addition, under this Alternative the existing land uses within the Project site would remain unchanged, and no General Plan Amendment or zone changes would occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, a former refinery, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City water retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. As such, the existing buildings, totaling approximately 7,600 square feet, would continue to function as they currently do. Internal circulation and parking would also remain unchanged. Accordingly, this Alternative would be equivalent to the conditions on the Project site discussed under existing conditions for each category analyzed in Section IV, Impact Analysis of this Draft EIR. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts associated with the Project. The No Project Alternative’s impacts on aesthetics, while not significant, would be greater than the proposed Project because benefits of the Project relative to policies pertaining to aesthetics as set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan would not be realized. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits associated with the Project’s provision of jobs and housing. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the basic objectives of the Project. Alternative B: Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative assumes a 25 percent reduction of all proposed Project land uses. Under this Alternative, the total commercial square footage would be reduced from 2,000,000 square feet to 1,500,000 square feet and the total number of dwelling units would be reduced from the 425 units to 319 units. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project’s significant, unavoidable traffic, air quality (i.e., odor) and noise impacts. While the Reduced Intensity Alternative, would fulfill the following project objectives it would do so to a lesser extent than the proposed Project: (1) transforming an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities; (2) locating commercial uses along transportation corridors; (3) developing a mix of commercial and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 residential uses; (4) providing infill development; and (5) creating an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors. Alternative C: Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative This Alternative assumes the maximum allowable development on-site consistent with the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site. Thus, no General Plan amendment or zone changes would be needed to implement this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the majority of the Project site west of Coffee Road would be developed with low-density residential uses with a maximum of 687 dwelling units. In addition to residential uses, the Project site would be developed with 525,000 square feet of commercial uses (40 percent office [210,000 square feet] and sixty percent retail [315,000 square feet], approximately the same ratio of office to retail uses as the Project), 1,267,596 square feet of industrial uses, 175,000 square feet of public facilities, and 21 acres of open space and parks. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. The General Plan Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project’s significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. This Alternative would increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a larger population and employee base that would result in greater demands for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries. Regarding project objectives, the General Plan Alternative, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. However, with the General Plan Alternative only providing approximately 26 percent of the commercial development included within the proposed Project, Alternative C would achieve to a lesser degree the following project objectives: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and corresponding reductions in air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Alternative D: Residential Alternative This Alternative assumes that only residential units would be developed on all portions of the Project site including the portion of the site east of Coffee Road. This Alternative could yield a maximum of 1,429 low-density residential dwelling units. The proposed size, massing, height, and design of the residential buildings would differ from the proposed Project as the residential units would be 1-to 2-story single City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 family homes and/or town homes as compared to buildings of a higher height and mass under the proposed Project. Roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would also differ. However, like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of the Residential Alternative. The Residential Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project’s significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. However, this Alternative would bring residential uses in closer proximity to the Big West refinery, the source of significant and unavoidable odor impacts. In addition, this Alternative would increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and would generate a larger population that would require greater demands than the proposed Project for public services including police and fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries. Regarding project objectives, the Residential Alternative would meet the Project’s basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; creating an attractive, walkable environment for people to live and play; and develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. However, and more importantly, the Residential Alternative would not meet most of the basic objectives of the Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and corresponding reductions in air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; and (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Alternative E: Industrial Alternative This Alternative assumes that 3,070,980 square feet of industrial uses would be developed on all portions of the Project site. This level of industrial development corresponds to a site coverage of 30 percent with one-story buildings. Consistent with current industrial development in the City, anticipated industrial uses to be developed as part of this Alternative include warehouse and distribution facilities as well as light manufacturing uses. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of the Industrial Alternative. The Industrial Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project’s significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. This Alternative would increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses and the use of hazardous materials and would generate a greater demand for utilities. Regarding project objectives, the Industrial Alternative would meet the Project’s City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. However, and more importantly, this Alternative would not meet most of the objectives of the Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) create a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and corresponding reductions in air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; (5) create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; and (6) develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. Alternative F: Alternative Site This Alternative would consist of developing the Project as proposed at an alternative location. The site identified as the Project’s “Alternative Site” is the proposed West Ming site, located west of Buena Vista Road and south of the Kern River in Southwest Bakersfield. The West Ming site is approximately 2,182 acres and is currently used for agricultural and oil production activities. The site is zoned for the West Ming Specific Plan (a neighborhood design community) that is not yet under construction. The existing West Ming project proposes 7,450 residential units, 478,800 square feet of commercial (including office, service, and retail), 331,200 square feet of town center commercial and mixed use (including office, service, and retail), and 1,135,000 square feet of special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public transportation, and office). Based on the size of the West Ming site it has been determined that the West Ming site is large enough to accommodate both the West Ming project as it is currently proposed as well as the land uses proposed for the Bakersfield Commons Project. As such, a portion of the West Ming site could accommodate the Project’s proposed land uses consisting of 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses, 425 residential dwelling units, and 4 acres of parks and open space. The Project site at Coffee Road and Brimhall Road would not be developed and the physical conditions of the Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. Development of the proposed Project at the Alternative Site would result in significant, unavoidable traffic and noise impacts. The Alternative Site would meet some of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would locate new commercial uses along transportation corridors; establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; and create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play. On the other hand, the Alternative Site would not implement several of the Project’s key basic objectives, particularly as they apply to northwest Bakersfield, in terms of the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the existing and future needs and demands of northwest Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and corresponding reductions in air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) providing a sustainable, infill development by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment This Alternative would consist of developing the Project as proposed while also realigning Brimhall Road to run through the Project site. The size, massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as other characteristics (e.g. lighting, landscaping, and utility connections), and associated grading and drainage improvements would be developed as proposed at the Project site. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative G. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative G as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative G below. Alternative G would have the same significant, unavoidable traffic and cumulative noise impacts as the proposed Project. Regarding project objectives, Alternative G, like the proposed Project but to a lesser degree, would meet most project objectives including (1) transforming an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities; and (2) developing a mix of commercial and residential uses and provide infill development. Alternative G, however, would not meet objectives such as creating an an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors, to the same extent as the proposed Project. Directing Brimhall Road through the project site could increase pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and, therefore, would not meet the project goal or objective of creating a walkable environment to encourage visitors and residents to walk throughout the commercial center to the same degree as the proposed Project. Alternative H: Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines require the consideration and discussion of project alternative in order to identify ways to mitigate or avoid significant effects that a project may have on the environment. Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project Alternative,” the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. An environmentally superior alternative is an alternative to the proposed Project that would reduce and/or eliminate the unmitigated, significant adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposed Project without creating other significant impacts and without substantially reducing and/or eliminating the environmental benefits attributable to the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Selection of an environmentally superior alternative was based, first, on an evaluation of the extent to which the alternatives reduce or eliminate the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project, and, second, on an across the board comparison of the remaining environmental impacts of each alternative. An absolute determination of the environmentally superior alternative for a project like the proposed Project is difficult for two reasons. First, due to the scope of the Project with multiple proposed uses to meet varying objectives, alternative projects invariably lead to a “better” impact regarding some environmental categories, and a “worse” impact regarding others. The identification of which categories should prevail in an overall analysis is subject to differing values from one reader to the next. Second, it is difficult to develop a total picture because some categories are more or less important, and are difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, per the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative (Alternative A) would be the environmentally superior alternative, as the significant impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would not occur with this Alternative. CEQA requires that when the No Project Alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, another alternative needs to be selected as environmentally superior. Of the remaining alternatives, the Residential Alternative (Alternative D) is selected as the environmentally superior alternative due to its relative reductions in traffic and noise impacts, as well as, providing greater compatibility with existing off-site residential uses to the south and west of the Project site. However, this Alternative would increase odor impacts, increase the potential for impacts associated with incompatible land uses, and generate a larger population that would require greater demands for public services. C. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by the City include known issues of concern to the community and issues raised in responses to the circulated NOP. See Appendix B, Comments Received During the NOP Period, of this Draft EIR. Known issues of concern to the community include traffic, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Issues raised in response to the NOP include: • Improperly abandoned and/or unrecorded wells, • Potential to disturb buried oil lines or pipelines, • Integration of existing petroleum related facilities, • Potential impacts associated with provision of County services, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Potential for incompatibility associated with the Project’s proximity to the Big West refinery to the east and PG&E facilities to the north, • Potential for impacts associated with previous land uses on site, • Ongoing remediation, • Potential for light pollution, • Impacts to aesthetics, • Impacts to biological resources, • Issues associated with energy efficiency and global warming, • Potential safety issues associated with at-grade railroad crossings, • Potential traffic impacts within an area of existing regional congestion, and • Potential air quality impacts in an area of degraded air quality. D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed Project are summarized below. A. Land Use 1. Environmental Impacts a. Consistency with Regional Plans Regional land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project were reviewed and the Project is concluded to be consistent with the following regional plans: Regional Transportation Plan, various plans administered by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District), Solid Waste Management Plan, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with these area-wide plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan. In addition, the Project design encourages people to live and work in the same area, thereby, minimizing sprawl and reducing traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, air pollution and noise levels. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Consistency with Local Plans On a local level, land use plans and policies applicable to the proposed Project include the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and related development regulations. As such, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the goals and policies as set forth in the MBGP. The proposed General Plan amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a mix of uses as described in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. In general, the consistency analysis concludes that the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies as well as the City’s Zoning Code. With the implementation of the Project’s design standards, which would limit Project heights, setbacks, etc., the proposed Project would be compatible with existing off-site land uses in regards to height, setback, design, and scale. Adjacent land uses include Low Density Residential uses to the south and west (zoned R-1), and General Commercial uses (zoned C-2) to the east, south and southeast. Light and Heavy Industrial land uses (zoned M-1 and M-2) are also present in the Project vicinity. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substations located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway, are designated for Public Facilities land uses, which includes utilities. The actual facilities associated with the PG&E power plant are not immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site. The Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J), located to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal, is outside the City boundary, with an applicable County designation for Industrial use. No residential communities would be displaced by Project-related activities, nor would the physical arrangement of the surrounding residential communities be modified or divided. In summary, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant land use impact in that the interface of the proposed Project’s physical and operational characteristics would be compatible with the surrounding land uses; the Project would not result in the division, disruption or isolation of an existing established community or neighborhood; and the Project would be compatible with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations. 2. Cumulative Impacts Development of the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR is anticipated to occur in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. Based on the information available regarding the related projects, it is reasonable to assume that the projects under consideration in the area surrounding the Project site would implement and support important local and regional planning goals and policies. Cumulatively, the proposed Project and the related projects within the northwest Bakersfield area would convert existing City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 vacant and underutilized property to accommodate new development that provides a full mix of uses, compatible with the natural environs and complementary to existing land uses. Furthermore, each of these projects would be subject to the project and permit approval processes and would incorporate mitigation measures necessary to reduce potential land use impacts. Therefore, no significant cumulative land use impacts are anticipated. 3. Mitigation Measures As no significant land use impacts would occur, no mitigation measures are required. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Land use impacts would be less than significant. B. Urban Decay 1. Environmental Impacts There is sufficient market demand to support the proposed Project along with existing retail developments and other proposed projects without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the City’s existing retail base and Project development would not trigger urban decay issues within the greater Bakersfield area. Therefore, visual deterioration would not occur as a result of urban decay and Project impacts would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts There is sufficient market demand to support the proposed Project along with existing retail developments and other proposed projects without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the existing retail base. Therefore, visual deterioration as a result of urban decay would not result and cumulative impacts associated with urban decay would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures As no significant urban decay would occur, no mitigation measures are required. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Urban decay impacts would be less than significant. C. Transportation/Traffic 1. Environmental Impacts a. Operation: Intersections, Street Segments, and Freeway Segments The Project is proposed to be developed in three phases as previously described in Section II.A, Project Summary, above. Opening day development (Phase I) is anticipated to be completed in 2015, whereas Phases II is anticipated to be complete between 2025 and 2035, while Phase III is anticipated to be completed in 2035. The traffic projections for the Project were developed using the following three steps (see Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR): 1) estimating the trip generation of the Project; 2) determining trip distribution; and 3) assigning the Project traffic to the future roadway system. Traffic impacts for all scenarios were assessed based on roadway and intersection level of service (LOS). In addition, several key roadway improvements in or near the study area are forecasted to be completed by 2015 and 2035, as part of the City’s regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) and the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). These improvements, whether the result of local or regional capital improvement programs or as mitigation for ongoing or entitled related projects, would result in capacity changes at various locations throughout the study area. These changes could result in changes to the existing traffic patterns in the study area and are reflected in the Kern COG model. The RTIF Improvements would be funded by the RTIF collected by the City from development projects and are expected to be fully in place by the year 2015 (Project Phase I) and the year 2035 (Project Phase II & III). Developments are required to pay their fair share for improvements at the facilities listed in the RTIF and any additional mitigation if if required. The Project share would be a fixed rate as established by the City for land uses in the General Plan Amendment (GPA). Prior to the commencement of Phases II and III, the Applicant will cause to be prepared a traffic confirmation analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions (see Mitigation Measure C-56). The analysis will include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis will also include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase I and Phase II for review and approval by the City. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 At buildout of Phase I, the Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 27,267 daily trips on a typical weekday, including 733 morning peak hour trips and 2,670 afternoon peak hour trips under Opening Year conditions (year 2015). The Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 39,489 daily trips on a typical weekday, including 1,222 morning peak hour trips and 3,981 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout – Phases I & II conditions (year 2035). The Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 44,461 daily trips on a typical weekday, including 1,744 morning peak hour trips and 4,539 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout – Phases I, II, & III conditions (year 2035). The distribution pattern of the Project’s traffic was developed based on an analysis performed by the Kern COG traffic model. The Project-generated traffic volumes were then added to the base traffic projections to yield the Future with Project traffic forecasts. These volumes are the basis for the analysis of the Project’s traffic-related impacts. 1. Intersection Impact Summary At the request of the City, the intersection impact analysis summarized below, was conducted using two different traffic impact criteria: 1) City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Impact Criteria and 2) Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria. In addition to the two full analyses using two criteria, two alternative analyses were conducted (one with each set of impact criteria) for 14 intersections along Rosedale Highway using an alternative methodology that provides signal green-time priority to east-west traffic along the Rosedale corridor. The remaining 107 intersections were not analyzed using this alternative green-time priority methodology. It should be noted that the green-time priority to Rosedale has not been approved. i. Intersection Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the results indicate that with Year 2015 Future with Project traffic volumes the Project with Phase I would have a significant impact at 12 intersections without mitigation in place. The mitigation measures C-1 to C-12 fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I intersection impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. At Year 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes (Phases I & II) the Project would have a significant impact at 13 intersections without mitigation measures. The mitigation measures C-13 to C-22 fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I & Phase II (year 2035) intersection impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. At Year 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes (Phases I, II, & III) the Project would have a less City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 than significant impact at 105 of the analyzed intersections and a significant impact at 16 intersections without mitigation measures. The mitigation measures C-23 to C-27 fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I, II, & III (year 2035) intersection impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. ii. Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact criteria with the Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway, the results indicate that with Year 2015 Future with Project traffic volumes the Project would have a significant impact at eight intersections without mitigation in place. The mitigation measures C-28 to C-35 fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I intersection impacts to below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway. At Year 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes (Phases I & II) the Project would have a significant impact at nine intersections without mitigation in place. The mitigation measures C-36 to C-42 only partially mitigate the Project’s Phase II intersection impacts to below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact on the intersections Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #30) and Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #56) during afternoon peak hours. At Year 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes (Phases I, II, & III), the Project would have a less than significant impact at five of the 14 analyzed intersections and a significant impact at nine intersections without mitigation in place. No further mitigation measures could be identified to mitigate the Project’s Phase III intersection impacts to below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact on the intersections Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #30) and Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #56) during afternoon peak hours. In the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project phase per Mitigation Measure C-56. 2. Street Segment and Freeway Segment Impact Summary Using the City of Bakersfield’s criteria for significant impacts on street segments, the Project’s traffic in opening year conditions (year 2015) would result in a less than significant impact at 80 of the 87 analyzed street segments. Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), Project traffic would result in a less than significant impact at 78 of the 87 analyzed segments. Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II & III), Project traffic would result in a less than significant impact at 77 of the 87 analyzed segments. No mitigation measures could be identified to mitigate the Project’s Phase I, II and III street segment impacts to below the City’s significance threshold at two street segments (Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue [Street Segment #77] and Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road [Street Segment #44], thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact on two of the 87 analyzed segments. All other street segment impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Additionally, under 2035 Phase I & II and 2035 Phases I, II, & III, the proposed Project would significantly impact two out of three future Westside Parkway freeway segments. In instances where the addition of project traffic causes a significant impact on the freeway facility, the Project is required to mitigate that impact by paying a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane). If there were freeway improvement projects proposed in these segments, the Project would owe 7.3 percent of the cost of the first segment and 22.7 percent of the second. At the present time, neither of these additional auxiliary lanes is proposed as part of the Westside Parkway construction project. Through payment of the Project’s Fair Share of these improvements, impacts would be less than significant. The RTIF calculation computes the Project share for each of the RTIF improvements. The computed Project share is the proportion of the Project traffic of the total new traffic at all of the RTIF facilities in the study area at the buildout year (2035). The Project’s RTIF contribution is $8,089,614, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 $3,571,870, and $3,148,546 for Phases I, II, and III, respectively, resulting in a total of $14,810,030 for the full Project. These calculations are informational only and would be subject to possible revision at the time of development based on updates to the RTIF program and pursuant to the results of the traffic confirmation analysis described above (Mitigation Measure C-56). b. Construction Construction worker traffic would depend on not only the level of effort during various construction phases, but also on the mode and time of travel of the workers. The hours of construction typically require workers to be on-site before the morning commute peak period and allow them to leave before the afternoon peak period. It is estimated that the daily manpower would be 165 workers during the average quarter (Phase I), which would rise to about 305 workers during the peak quarter (Phase II). Assuming that 25 percent of the construction employees would enter or leave the Project Site during the peak hours, this translates to 42 trips in the average quarter and 77 trips in the peak quarter during the peak commute periods. This level of added traffic is not expected to adversely affect street operations and impacts would be less than significant. City and emergency service providers would be identified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes and detours due to construction activities of the Project. Thus, construction activities attributable to the proposed Project are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. Nevertheless, mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that the impact remains less than significant. c. Hazards, Emergency Access, Parking, and Alternative Transportation The Project would provide for adequate parking and would serve to promote alternative transportation on-site. The Project would not interfere with emergency access and would not result in hazards due to design features. 2. Cumulative Impacts The analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Project addresses cumulative traffic impacts by comparing the effects of future growth in traffic within the region through consideration of traffic generated by future City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 traffic growth and intersection, street segments, and freeway segments operating conditions that are forecasted as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site by year 2015 and 2035. Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth were incorporated into the traffic analysis and therefore reflected in the Future without and with Project conditions presented above. As shown above, two of the study intersections, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #30) and Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (Intersection #56) during afternoon peak hours and two street segments, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) and Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), cannot be mitigated to below the City’s significance threshold, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impacts. Where street segment improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. However, none of the other study intersections, street segments or freeway segments are expected to be significantly impacted by Project traffic using the significance thresholds established by the City with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-59 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Level of Significance After Mitigation Under Intersection Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Under the analyzed scenario, Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below significance criteria set forth under the Five-Second Delay intersection analysis criteria. Level of Significance After Mitigation Under Green-Time Priority Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Under this analyzed scenario, Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below significance criteria set forth under the Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 intersection analysis with the exception two intersections during afternoon peak hours, thus resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts at the following two intersections: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Level of Significance After Mitigation Under Street Segment Analysis The Mitigation Measures proposed for street segments 14, 30, 31, 47, 61, 62, 65, and 77 were determined to be infeasible and therefore significant and unavoidable impacts would remain at these street segments. In the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient rightof-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Nonetheless, because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain after the development of each Project phase, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project phase per Mitigation Measure C-56. D. Aesthetics 1. Environmental Impacts a. Visual Character The proposed Project would create an inviting community and pedestrian-oriented environment with retail, theater, office, and residential uses. The proposed Project would help contribute to the neighborhood character of the northwest Bakersfield community by providing a contemporary, architectural design with articulated façades, appropriately scaled to the “main street” and to pedestrians. Thus, the proposed Project would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, namely those that promote the establishment of new centers, differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character, as the principal focus of development and activity in the City. In addition, the proposed Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing off-site uses, recognizing building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting, and other design elements that would make the Project compatible with off-site commercial and residential development. As such, the proposed Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site, and visual character/quality impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Light and Glare The proposed Project would introduce additional sources of lighting and reflective surfaces to the Project site, as compared to the site’s existing conditions. New lighting sources would include outdoor street lighting and security lighting, indoor lighting, signage lighting, and light generated by vehicle headlights. Lighting would be used as a design tool to highlight architectural elements and landscaping, as well as for building tenant and Project signage. All lighting, including lighting of parking structures, should any be constructed as part of the Project, would be designed to be compatible with surrounding development; directed onto the driveways, walkways and parking; and shielded away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. This aspect of the Project’s design would minimize spillage of the illumination into the surrounding areas and public rights-of-way, and to minimize glare or interference with vehicular traffic. The proposed Project would incorporate a comprehensive lighting program into its design features to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area. Therefore, light and glare impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 2. Cumulative Impacts As listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR the related off-site projects within the same viewshed as the proposed Project could have the potential to combine with the proposed Project and result in cumulative aesthetic impacts. There are two known related off-site projects that meet this criteria. Like the proposed Project, these related off-site projects constitute infill of residential and commercial/retail land uses in an area with compatible surrounding development, in accordance with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies for the area. Also like the proposed Project, the related projects’ site plans would be subject to the City’s design review or site plan review procedures to ensure consistency with the City’s ordinances, policies, and standards related to architectural design, building heights, setback, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among others. As the proposed Project unto itself would have less than significant impacts to visual character and light and glare, the limited additional changes brought about by the related projects in conjunction with the proposed Project would yield less than significant cumulative impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures With implementation of the Project Design Features listed in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 aesthetics, no mitigation measures are required. However, Mitigation Measures D-1 and D-2, which reflects existing design requirements and/or good planning principles, are recommended to further reduce the proposed Project’s less-than-significant impacts: 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The incorporation of Mitigation Measures D-1 and D-2 would ensure that the proposed Project continues to have a less than significant impact with respect to aesthetics. E. Geology 1. Environmental Impacts The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active or potentially active faults cross or are located on the Project site. However, the Project applicant would be required to design and construct the Project in conformance with City Ordinances and the seismic design requirements of applicable building codes. This would reduce the potential potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Based on the potential for ground shaking, anticipated soils, anticipated depths to groundwater, and other conditions at the Project site, the potential for liquefaction, subsidence, dynamic compaction, slope stability, expansive soil and associated settlement or bearing loss is considered low. However, if Project soils conditions are not as anticipated, there is a potential for significant impacts associated with liquefaction and dynamic compaction. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the potential for soil erosion during the operation of the proposed Project is relatively low due to the fact that the Project site would be almost entirely paved over and/or landscaped. All grading activities would require grading permits, which would include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. 2. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the Project in conjunction with future development within surrounding areas could expose more persons and property to potential impacts due to seismic activity. However, seismic and geologic issues would be addressed on a project-by-project basis. Furthermore, the impacts would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soil impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures E-1 and E-2 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures E-1 and E-2 and compliance with applicable regulations would reduce all Project impacts related to geology and soils to a less than significant level. F. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Environmental Impacts a. Surface Water Quality and Hydrology The proposed Project would result in a substantial decrease in pervious surfaces on site from approximately 245 currently pervious acres to approximately 10 pervious acres at Project buildout. This increase in impervious surface would substantially increase the total amount of surface water runoff generated at the Project site. To address this change in on-site conditions, the Project’s design includes four proposed retention facilities that would collect and store all Project runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces. Additionally, Project design features would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater system. The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. A small portion of the Project site, at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, is within the 500-year flood zone designation. No housing is proposed within this zone. The Project site is also located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In the event of dam failure, serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately 6 to 8 hours after dam failure. Runoff during construction and operation of the Project has the potential to contribute sediment and roadway contaminants (e.g. oil) to surface water. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal requirements for controlling pollutant impacts to stormwater and urban runoff from construction and operation activities. Therefore, with incorporation of Project design features to reduce impacts, in addition to the flood evacuation City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department, impacts to surface water hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. b. Groundwater Quality and Hydrology With implementation of the proposed Project, including Project design features, the amount of water infiltrating into the groundwater system would be similar in volume to current conditions. Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to impact groundwater quality if polluted surface water is allowed to infiltrate into the groundwater system untreated. Project design features, including treatment and testing of runoff in underground retention structures, would minimize impacts to groundwater quality that could result from polluted surface water runoff to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure F-1 is proposed to further reduce the less than significant impact. In addition, the remediation equipment located on the six-acre portion of the Project site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway can be relocated or modified, as necessary, with oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) when development on that portion of the Project site occurs. Equipment associated with remediation would be decommissioned and reinstalled as needed in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. Lastly, existing oil and water wells would be abandoned, if necessary, pursuant to applicable State and local guidelines, and would result in a less than significant impact to groundwater quality. The Project would result in a less than significant impact to groundwater. Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 would further reduce this less than significant impact. 2. Cumulative Impacts The majority of the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR occur on existing vacant or agricultural land, which currently allow stormwater and irrigation water to percolate into the ground or runoff into drainage sumps and nearby canals. Each related project, as part of its design, must include stormwater drainage systems to capture and discharge waters from each respective site. Thus, the majority of the related projects in the area would transmit stormwater into retention/detention facilities that would be developed as part of the respective projects. As each related project would mitigate its own impacts, as is the case with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity would be less than significant. Additionally, the related projects could increase the amount of urban pollutants that could ultimately affect surface and groundwater quality. All of the related projects would be compliant with stringent requirements of the CWA, which are implemented by the City and Kern County through the SUSMP and other statewide NPDES requirements. Water quality standards are achieved through the implementation City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 of BMPs during design, construction, and post-construction operations. The proposed Project and related projects would comply with these requirements and cumulative impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Potential Project impacts to groundwater and surface water hydrology and quality would be less than significant with the implementation of Project design features. Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 would further reduce this less than significant impact. G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction Soils located on the portion of the site east of Coffee Road have the potential to be contaminated with with petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, there is the potential to encounter these contaminated soils during construction excavation and grading activities. Exposure to these types of hazardous substances could result in a significant impact. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts during construction would be less than significant. Construction of the Project is not anticipated to significantly impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or on-site emergency response or evacuation plans or a local, state, or federal agency’s emergency evacuation plan. Construction activities would not create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Exposure to impacted soils or underground storage tanks could result in significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation measures are proposed to to reduce this impact. Furthermore, construction of the Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release or explosion of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Operation Project operations have the potential to increase the routine acquisition, use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials on-site. All potentially hazardous materials, including the operation of above and below ground storage tanks, would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Through continued compliance with applicable laws, impacts associated with the routine use, storage, disposal and management of hazardous materials would be less than significant. In addition, new on-site construction due to the Project would include the use of commercially sold construction materials that are not anticipated to increase the occurrence of ACMs, LBP, or PCBs at the Project site. Therefore, operation of the new development proposed at the Project site is not anticipated to expose people to these materials. In addition, per applicable regulations, workers associated with the Project would be protected by worker safety requirements. Therefore, no significant impact associated with the operation of the Project is anticipated and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts As listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR each of the related projects off-site would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools), listed hazardous material sites, aircraft-related hazards, emergency response, and wildland fire hazards. Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, this evaluation would occur on a case-by-case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, state, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. However, existing operations at the Big West refinery have the potential to result in minor and major hazards and the proposed Big West project, which proposes to construct and operate additional processing units within the existing refinery, would increase the number of both major and minor hazards at the Big West refinery. Major hazards have the potential to lead to substantial property damage or major injury to members of the public. The potential for major hazards as a result of existing operations would be considered a significant cumulative impact that is unavoidable. Expansion of the refinery would increase this impact. The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Thus, while the Big West project could increase the potential for major hazards, the incremental effects of the proposed Project are not significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects, including Big West’s expansion. Because the proposed Project’s contribution to the potential release of hazardous materials are not cumulatively considerable, the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 and compliance with applicable regulations, Project impacts would be less than significant. H. Mineral Resources 1. Environmental Impacts The principal mineral resources present in the proposed Project area are oil, natural gas, sand, and gravel. Kern County is the fifth largest oil producing county in the country and the region is a major oilproducing area with substantial oil and gas fields existing within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Sand and gravel are also important resources, providing material for new construction and the maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. Viable oil reserves exist in the vicinity of the Project, and two wells on the eastern edge of the site are actively producing oil. Although these wells would not be demolished as part of the Project and they would continue to operate per City standards, the Project may result in the loss of availability of a known valuable mineral resource, oil. On the basis that there is a possibility for a loss of availability of a known valuable resource, it is conservatively considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure H-1 is proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would preclude the extraction of significant sand and gravel resources as these activities would not be allowed under the proposed land use and zoning designations, however, it is unlikely that viable economic extraction of these materials would occur in the area of the site given the low potential for highgrade sand and gravel resources. Therefore, impacts to petroleum and sand and gravel resources would be less than significant with mitigation. 2. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to mineral resources could occur if the cumulative projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would result in the loss of oil or aggregate mineral resources. Some of the related projects off-site may also occur within or near existing oil fields and sand and gravel mining operations. However, where these resources have substantial remnant supplies, none of the related projects are anticipated to preclude City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 continued extraction or production of these resources. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site, because the site is not delineated as such on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure H-1 is listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 would reduce potential impacts to mineral resources to a less than significant level. I. Biological Resources 1. Environmental Impacts The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to protected trees, special status plants, plant communities, common wildlife or wildlife movement, or jurisdictional features. The proposed Project may result in potentially significant impacts to special status wildlife species, including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3. The proposed Project is in compliance with local policies and ordinances, and would be in compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) through implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1. In summary, the proposed Project would not have a significant environmental impact on biological resources. The Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, as the site is already heavily disturbed, developed and/or degraded. The Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause such a population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or reduce the the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, as the site currently supports minimal habitat for plant and wildlife species and any impacts to sensitive species that may occur on-site would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3. The Project does not threaten to eliminate any plant or animal community or City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 any important example of a major period of California history or prehistory, as the site supports disturbed and degraded habitats that are common in the region. 2. Cumulative Impacts The proposed Project in combination with the other related off-site projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR within the City would result in the continued development of land within the City of Bakersfield. Of the identified related projects, most exhibit disturbed habitat conditions similar to that observed on the proposed Project site and are located in similar proximity to existing developed areas and/or other similarly disturbed adjacent lands. As such, most of these related projects have the potential to support similar sensitive biological resources including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds. Potential impacts to these sensitive biological resources from the related projects, when considered with the potential impacts to these resources from the proposed Project, may result in cumulatively considerable adverse impacts. However, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project, and given the fact that other related projects with similar potential impacts would also be required to implement similar mitigation measures for these sensitive resources under their CEQA evaluations and regulatory agency requirements, the proposed Project’s impacts to sensitive biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. In addition, most, if not all, of the related projects would be required to comply with the MBHCP with regard to paying applicable development fees and employing “take” avoidance measures. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1, involving compliance with the MBHCP, would reduce potential impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse to a less than significant level, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure I-2, involving either grading outside of the nesting season, or pre-construction surveys during the nesting season, would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure I-3, involving surveys for relocations of and buffers to burrowing owls, would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. As a result, Project impacts on biological resources, with the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 J. Cultural Resources 1. Environmental Impacts The proposed Project would not result in any impacts to historical resources. The records search and field survey conducted in support of this Draft EIR did not identify any historic resources within the Project site and identified only six sites containing historic and/or archaeological resources within 0.5 miles of the Project, of which only one is considered eligible for (but is not listed on) the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed Project may have the potential to disturb archaeological resources or deposits at the Project site. Specifically, the records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project site. During the site survey, approximately six pieces of burned bone were observed at the site within an area approximately 1-meter square. The site was assigned a temporary designation of 1586-SITE-JL-1 and later assigned a permanent designation of CA-KER-7285 (P-15-012881). CA-KER-7285 does not meet California Register eligibility criteria, and is therefore not considered a resource under CEQA. Thus, the proposed Project will not affect archaeological resources and no further management of the site is required. Further, due to the low probability of subsurface features, a construction monitor is not recommended for the planned work. Although the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 are proposed to further minimize the potential for impacts to archaeological resources. When considering paleontological resources, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section indicated that they do not have “any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the project boundaries, nor do we have any fossil vertebrate localities anywhere nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur at the the surface in the proposed project area”. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to paleontological resources. Overall, potential Project impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts resulting from the development of the identified related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Each related project would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would further reduce the Project’s less than significant impact. K. Air Quality 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction During construction of the proposed Project, three basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions: (1) demolition of existing on-site structures; (2) site preparation activities including the clearing of the site, grading, and the installation of on-site streets, subsurface infrastructure, and building foundations; and (3) construction of the proposed commercial and residential buildings. Construction emissions would be generated from earthmoving activities, operation of construction equipment within the Project site itself, delivery of construction materials and the hauling of construction waste as well as construction worker travel to and from the Project site. During Phase I construction, significant regional air quality impacts would occur, before mitigation, with regard to nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in 2011 only. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Emissions of all other criteria pollutants at a regional level during Phase I construction would result in less than significant impacts. Regional emissions of all criteria pollutants throughout construction of Phases I, II and III would have less than significant impacts. Analyzed local pollutant concentrations and odors throughout the Project’s construction period would be less than significant. Project construction would also result in emissions of greenhouse gases. As greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions occur during Project construction as well as operations, the analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions are provided below. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Operations Project operations would generate regional criteria pollutant emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for cooking, space and water heating devices, and operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. In terms of the Project’s individual development phases, as well as to the overall Project, emissions of all criteria pollutants at a regional level, except for those specified above, would result in less than significant impacts. As the proposed Project would be developed in three phases, the Project would generate construction and operational emissions concurrently. Based on a review of Project phasing and emissions it was determined that the greatest potential for concurrent regional emissions would occur at the time Phase I is operational and Phase II is under construction in 2024. In this year, total concurrent regional emissions of all criteria pollutants, with the incorporation of the identified project design features, would be less than significant. Roadways and intersections with high traffic volumes have the potential to generate localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO). Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) considers CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Based on the District’s criteria, a total of 12 intersections were analyzed. Based on detailed modeling using very conservative assumptions, projected CO concentrations at all 12 intersections do not exceed national or state ambient air quality standards. Therefore, Project development would not result in the creation of a CO hotspot at any location or under any development phase. Thus, Project impacts on localized CO concentrations would be less than significant. The proposed Project would require the delivery of goods using medium and heavy duty diesel trucks. The Air Resources Board (ARB) and the District have recognized that certain emissions from diesel engines, specifically, diesel particulate matter (DPM), are potential hazardous air pollutants. Due to the size of the proposed retail component and the potential that these uses could be located in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses), an analysis was performed on the estimated truck traffic for the site. Using conservative assumptions, the calculated cancer and non-cancer risk during each Project phase, as well as the Project at buildout, would both be below the District thresholds, and as such, the Project’s health risk impact is less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 While the Project would not individually generate a significant impact with regard to hazardous air pollutants, the Project would locate sensitive receptors near an existing source of hazardous air pollutants -the Big West refinery, which is located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant-Kern Canal. The Health Risk Assessment completed for the expansion of the Big West refinery determined that the impacts associated with its expansion would be less than significant. Thus, under normal Big West operations, impacts to the Project’s sensitive receptors would be less than significant. As the Project site is not located immediately downwind of the Big West refinery, the Project would be consistent with the recommendations set forth in ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Impacts associated with Valley Fever, a fungal infection caused by inhalation of Valley Fever spores found in the top two inches of soil in the hillsides in the San Joaquin Valley, are less than significant as the Project site is not underlain by the types of sediments that are known to contain Valley Fever spores and the Project would implement appropriate dust controls, as required by the District. The proposed Project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions during both Project construction and operations. During Project construction, GHG emissions are associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste, as well as episodic water use for fugitive dust control. During Project operations, GHG emissions would be generated primarily from motor vehicle travel but also from electricity and natural gas consumption, solid waste disposal, as well as water usage and wastewater generation. The analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions occurs in terms of quantifying the GHG emissions generated by the Project as well as the extent the Project reduces its GHG emissions relative to “business as usual” levels. This approach is consistent with guidance set forth by the ARB and District. The Project’s GHG emissions at buildout are 58,202 tons CO2e, which represents approximately 0.012 percent of the 2004 Statewide GHG Inventory. Reductions in Project GHG emissions would be achieved via a series of design features that would be implemented during construction as well as operations. The most noteworthy of these is the implementation of a GHG Management Plan specifically designed for the proposed Project that assures that its GHG emissions are reduced by 29 percent below “business as usual” levels. With this level of reduction, the Project’s GHG emissions are concluded to be less than significant. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed Project, which consists of the the development of commercial, office, and residential uses at the Project site, involves no elements related to these types of activities. Consequently, no objectionable odors are anticipated at the Project site resulting from operation of the proposed Project, and the existing sensitive receptors City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 located adjacent to the Project site would not be exposed to any objectionable odors as a result of the Project. Therefore, no impacts associated with objectionable odors due to operation of the proposed Project are anticipated. As the proposed Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units, these proposed sensitive receptors could potentially be exposed to existing sources of objectionable odors in the Project site vicinity. The nearest source of potential objectionable odors to the Project site is the Big West refinery. Based on past odor complaints associated with Big West and other refineries in the City, and the fact that additional petroleum processing units are planned for development at the Big West refinery in the near future to increase production of gasoline and diesel fuel, the potential odors generated at the Big West refinery due to existing operations could result in a significant impact on the proposed residential uses at the Project site and impacts would increase as a result of the proposed Big West expansion. However, this conclusion is based on a strict interpretation of the District’s significance threshold with regard to odors. When considering this conclusion it is important to note that the prevailing winds in the Project area are from the northwest and the Big West refinery is located east of the Project site, thereby placing the Project site upwind of the Big West refinery. As such, the potential for the significant odor impact described above to actually occur is limited. As a result, the conclusion of a significant odor impact represents a very conservative conclusion that is anticipated to substantially overstate the actual impact that is anticipated to occur. c. Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans and Policies The City’s General Plan Conservation Element includes several policies geared towards protecting air quality conditions in the City. In summary, the Project would successfully implement all of the identified policies. As such, it is concluded that a less than significant impact would occur. The District currently oversees the implementation of the following three air quality management plans (AQMPs) with regard to activities occurring within the District: (1) State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide; (2) Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan; and (3) PM10 Maintenance Plan. In addition, as the Project includes the adoption of a General Plan Amendment, the Project’s consistency with applicable District policies have also been evaluated. In summary, Project development would be consistent with all District AQMPs and applicable policies. As such, a less than significant impact would occur. 2. Cumulative Impacts The District has determined that if a proposed project individually has a significant air quality impact it is also considered to have a significant cumulative impact. All of the Project’s air quality impacts from City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 construction and operations are less than significant, with the exception of the exposure of future on-site occupants to potential odors associated with the existing operations of the Big West refinery in addition to the proposed Big West expansion. As this significant impact is solely attributable to the Project’s location, rather that any impacts generated by Project construction or operations, it is concluded that the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with regard to odors. In addition, and as described above, it is unlikely that the Project’s residential uses would be impacted by odors originating from the Big West refinery. The Project’s cumulative GHG emissions are also concluded to be less than significant as the Project is consistent with the strategies set forth in the 2006 CAT Report. The proposed Project would include an integrated set of emissions reducing features addressing each land use type included within the proposed Project. The proposed Project also sets forth a series of performance targets that would guide design, construction, and operational practices throughout the life of the Project. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-16 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance After Mitigation The mitigation measures outlined above would serve to reduce emissions during both Project construction and operations. With the implementation of the project design features, regional emissions during Project construction and operations would be reduced to less than significant levels with regards to the District’s regional thresholds. Furthermore, Project impacts with regard to localized CO concentrations (during Project construction and operations), odors during Project construction, and consistency with the applicable AQMPs and GHG emissions are also all less than significant. Due to the proximity of the proposed Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), on-site occupants could be exposed to potential odors associated with existing operations at the refinery as well as proposed future expansion of Big West refinery operations. There are currently no feasible mitigation measures available that can be implemented by the proposed Project to eliminate or reduce these impacts. Thus, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, since the area’s prevailing winds originate from the northwest and the Project Site is located to the west of the Big West refinery, it is unlikely that the Project’s residential uses would be impacted by odors originating at the Big West refinery. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 L. Noise 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction Noise During construction of the proposed Project, the nearest and most notable off-site noise sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing single-family uses located to the west and south of the Project site boundary, and the existing single-family residence that is located south and east of the Project site, on the east side of Coffee Road. The peak construction noise levels experienced by these off-site sensitive receptors would range from approximately 77 dBA Leq (equivalent energy noise level) to approximately 86 dBA Leq. The construction activities associated with the proposed Project would comply with the noise regulations established in Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Compliance with these noise regulations would result in less than significant construction-related noise impacts for for the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3 are proposed to further reduce this less than significant impact. b. Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration The vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive receptors would range from 0.005 peak particle velocity (PPV) to 0.018 PPV. Overall, the vibration velocities experienced by the off-site sensitive receptors are low and would not exceed any of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) construction vibration damage criteria. Thus, a less than significant impact associated with groundborne vibration during construction would occur. In terms of human annoyance, the vibration levels forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive receptors would range from 65.9 velocity in decibels (VdB) to 73.0 VdB. Because none of the vibration levels at the off-site sensitive uses would exceed the FTA’s threshold of 75 VdB for residences, the vibration impact at these off-site sensitive uses during construction would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 c. Operational Noise 1. Traffic Noise on Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Based on the forecast of future noise levels, the proposed Project would not exceed the identified noise thresholds established by the City at any of the study roadway segments during the Project’s opening day in 2015. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Following implementation of Phases I & II in 2035, the proposed Project would increase local noise levels at one of the study roadway segments (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) such that these noise increases would exceed the City’s identified noise thresholds. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would not be perceptible in the context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 5 CNEL are on average barely perceivable to the human ear. In terms of adjoining land uses, this significant impact would occur at the single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located west of Coffee Road. Implementation of Phases I, II, & III of the proposed Project, during the Project buildout year of 2035, would increase local noise levels at one of the study roadway segments (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) such that these noise increases would exceed the City’s identified noise thresholds. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this roadway segment, this impact would be significant. In terms of adjoining land uses, this significant impact would occur at the single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located west of Coffee Road. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter this increase would not be perceptible in the context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 5 CNEL are on average barely perceivable to the human ear. 2. On-site Non-Vehicular Noise With implementation of Project design features, noise levels generated by the delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with the proposed Project on the nearby off-site noise sensitive uses would be less than significant. Such features may include erecting a noise wall and constructing exterior windows with double-pane glass. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Railroad Noise In accordance with the noise analysis, (Appendix O), the exterior and interior areas of the proposed on-site residences would not be exposed to train noise that would exceed 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL, respectively. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 4. Operational Groundborne Vibration The proposed Project would not include stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels. Furthermore, vibration levels generated by on-site operations would not result in a substantial groundborne vibration impact on nearby sensitive uses. Additionally, the BNSF Railway would not expose residential uses to substantial groundborne vibration levels from the passenger and freight trains traveling on the railway. Therefore, these impacts are concluded to be less than significant. 5. Noise Impacts on Proposed On-Site Residential Uses The residential uses proposed to occur at the Project site would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the standards established for such uses. While this constitutes a significant impact, a mitigation measure is proposed that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Cumulative Impacts With conformance with Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant. With regard to operational traffic noise impacts, the increase in local noise levels over the existing traffic volumes at the study roadway segments would range from a minimum of -0.9 dBA CNEL to a maximum of 1.0 dBA CNEL in 2015, from a minimum of 0.4 dBA CNEL to a maximum of 2.3 dBA CNEL in 2035 (Phases I & II), and from a minimum of 0.4 dBA CNEL to a maximum of 2.4 dBA CNEL in 2035 (Phases I, II, & III). These increases in local noise levels would result in cumulative noise impacts in 2035. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with mobile noise sources generated by by cumulative development along with the proposed Project would be significant in 2035. With regards to construction noise and operational noise (i.e., stationary noise sources) the related projects are not located close enough to result in cumulative noise and vibration impacts from sources City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 located within each related project site. As such, cumulative noise impacts associated with construction and operation from on-site sources would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-4 are listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation Noise impacts associated with Project construction are less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3 would further reduce the Project’s less than significant construction noise levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure L-4 would reduce the noise impacts on the proposed on-site residential uses to a less than significant level. Noise impacts from Project traffic along the identified roadway segment (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) in years 2035 after Phase II development, and 2035 after Phase III development would be significant and unavoidable. With respect to roadway noise impacts attributable to cumulative traffic conditions for the identified roadway segment (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) in year 2015 after Phase I development, year 2035 after Phase II development and 2035 after Phase III development would also be significant and unavoidable. M. Population and Housing 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction-Related Growth The development of the proposed Project would result in increased employment opportunities during its approximate 25-year construction period. However, construction-related employment opportunities would not likely result in household relocation by construction workers to the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction workers would relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed Project, and no substantial population or housing growth would would occur. As a result, Project construction would result in a less than significant population or housing impact. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Population Growth Based on the 2009 average household size for the City (i.e., 3.02 persons per household), the 425 proposed residential units would directly introduce a total of approximately 1,284 new permanent residents to the Project area by 2035. While it is likely that some existing City residents would relocate their place of residence to the proposed Project, in order to provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all of the permanent residents locating at the Project site would be new to the City. In addition to the new residents associated with the proposed residential uses, the demolition of the 7,600 square feet of existing office uses and the construction of 1,400,000 square feet of new retail/theatre space and 600,000 square feet of new office space would create 5,169 (net) new jobs, assuming a reduction of 31 jobs associated with the existing uses. These net new jobs would be considered indirect population growth. For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that 100 percent of the new employees, approximately 5,169 individuals would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the Project site. Based on an average household size of 3.02 persons for the area, the proposed Project would indirectly increase the City’s population by 15,611 individuals in association with the proposed non-residential uses. However, this population increase is based on a worst-case scenario assumption that 100 percent of the proposed new employees would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the Project site. However, it is likely that many jobs would be filled by residents who live in the residences constructed as part of the proposed Project or by residents who already reside in the City or commute to the City and that the number of persons relocating to the City as a result of the Project would be limited. The population growth associated with the proposed Project (16,895 persons) is consistent with the forecasts of the City Planning Department as well as the Kern COG, and thus, the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly at the City or County level. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur. c. Housing Growth The proposed Project would construct 425 residential units by 2035. This housing growth would assist both the City and the County in achieving their overall housing allocations set forth in future updates to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan (RHNAAP). Assuming that similar ratios are carried into future updates to the RHNAAP, the proposed Project would increase the overall housing supply, including housing for Moderate and Above Moderate incomes. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the current RHNAAP and the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial housing growth. Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be consistent with City General Plan housing policies and would not City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 induce substantial housing growth. Overall, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to housing growth. d. Jobs-Housing Balance Based on available population and employment projections as well as extrapolated housing data, the City is expected to see an increase in the number of jobs in the coming years. The proposed Project, which would create a substantial number of new job opportunities, as well as some new housing, would provide job opportunities for future Project residents and, job opportunities for the existing and future residents in the surrounding community. Therefore, by maintaining the local jobs-housing balance by providing jobs and housing, the proposed Project would also help implement regional and local policies related to trip reduction, air quality, and related polices set forth in such planning documents as the City’s City’s General Plan, San Joaquin Valley Partnership’s (SJVP) Kern Regional Blueprint Project, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (District) Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP). 2. Cumulative Impacts With respect to the City’s growth projections, if all related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR were constructed by approximately 2035, the 226,375 cumulative residents represent approximately 54 percent (226,375 ÷ 417,445) of the population growth expected to occur in the City between 2000 and 2035 or approximately 19 percent (226,375 ÷ 1,207,160) of the population growth expected to occur in the County between 2000 and 2035. With respect to housing growth, if all related projects were constructed by approximately 2035, the 57,169 cumulative residences represent approximately 28 percent (57,169 ÷ 202,307) of the housing growth expected to occur in the City between 2000 and 2035 or approximately 20 percent (57,169 ÷ 283,937) of the housing growth expected to occur in the County between 2000 and 2035. When considering cumulative impacts, the total population growth associated with the proposed Project would account for approximately seven and a half percent (16,895 ÷ 226,375) of the cumulative total. The number of residences associated with the proposed Project would account for less than one percent of the cumulative total (425 ÷ 57,169). In addition, the proposed housing would assist the City and County in meeting the regional housing need allocations set forth in the next update to the RHNAAP. Therefore, overall the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact and impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Mitigation Measures As the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to population and housing, no mitigation measures are required. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to population and housing. N. Public Services POLICE PROTECTION 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction The Project applicant would employ standard precautions to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement at the Project construction site and impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. Notwithstanding that, construction of the Project could temporarily interfere with local and on-site emergency response. Although anticipated to be minimal and short-term, construction activities such as lane closures, sidewalk closures, and utility line construction, construction, could have implications in relation to response time for emergency vehicles due to travel time delays. Appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures would also be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) and other City standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project’s construction-related impacts on police services would be less than significant. b. Operation As noted above, the proposed Project would introduce approximately 1,284 new residents and 5,169 net new employees to the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would also increase the number of site visitors (i.e., guests, customers) at the proposed commercial uses and residences. Impacts to police services would not occur all at once and would be distributed throughout the process of the proposed Project development, which is forecasted to occur over a City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 period of approximately 25 years. The proposed Project would be served by the West Side Substation, which has 75 police personnel, and is currently operating at less than capacity levels. According to the BPD, the 1,284 new permanent residents by 2035 would require two additional officers to meet the desired officer-to-population ratio. This would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the proposed Project would contribute. To offset potential impacts related to the additional population, the proposed Project would incorporate Policy 2 of the Public Services Element of the General Plan, which requires discretionary projects to assess the impacts on police and fire services and facilities. Consultation with BPD during Project review and participation in existing funding mechanisms would further reduce impacts to a less than significant level. According to the BPD, the proposed Project would not require the construction of new police facilities. The proposed Project would also be consistent with the goals stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with respect to police services. Emergency access to the Project site would be provided by Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, as well as the two proposed internal roadways which would bisect the Project site. The proposed Project would not impact existing emergency routes and no hazardous design features are included in the access design or site plan for the proposed Project that could impede emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase the demand for police protection services in the Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demand for additional BPD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, like the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to BPD review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police protection and services would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to police protection and services. FIRE PROTECTION 1. Environmental Impacts a. Construction Although anticipated to be minimal and short-term, construction activities such as lane closures, sidewalk closures, and utility line construction, could have implications in relation to response time for emergency vehicles due to travel time delays. Construction activities would also generate traffic associated with the movement of construction equipment, hauling of demolition and graded materials, and employee traffic. Appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures would be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) and other City standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project’s construction-related impacts on fire services would be less than significant. b. Operation The proposed Project would introduce approximately 1,284 new residents and 5,169 net new employees to the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would also increase the number of site visitors at the proposed residences and commercial uses. Impacts to fire protection services would not occur all at once and would be distributed throughout the process of proposed Project development, which is forecasted to occur over a period of approximately 25 years. Furthermore, all development on-site shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, Title 19, 22 and 27 of the California Safety Code Regulations, the Bakersfield Municipal Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Standards, thus, reducing the Project’s impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, according to the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), no new facilities would need to be constructed due to the development of the proposed Project because the site and proposed uses would be adequately served by existing stations. Fire flow requirements for commercial uses are 2,000 to 3,500 gpm for 2 hours, whereas the required fire flow for residential uses are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for one hour with 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure, and 1,000 gpm flow for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 two hours with 20 psi residual pressure. Fire flows in the Project area are between 2,500 gpm and 3,000 gpm with 20 psi residual pressure. According to the BFD, the existing available fire flow for the Project site would be adequate to serve the proposed land uses and impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant. Access would be provided according to the requirements of the BFD and the proposed development plans would be submitted to the BFD for review and comment prior to construction. Thus, impacts associated with fire services and apparatus accessibility after construction would also be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase the demand for fire protection services in the Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional BFD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. Each of the related projects would also be individually subject to review, and would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts on fire protection and services would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to fire protection and services. SCHOOLS 1. Environmental Impacts The proposed Project would introduce a total of 425 new single-and multi-family dwelling units and a net increase increase of approximately 2,000,000 square feet of retail and office space. These new residents and employees would generate students within the attendance boundaries of Columbia Elementary, Quailwood Elementary, Fruitvale Junior High School, Liberty High School, and Bakersfield High City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-45 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Schools. The approximately 5,169 employees generated by the Project are anticipated to be largely present in the local labor force and are not anticipated to generate a substantial number of students such that the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing school facilities would be required. The proposed Project is currently served by Columbia Elementary and Quailwood Elementary schools. Although Project development during occurring in Phase III would not exceed the projected enrollment of Columbia Elementary, the school would not have adequate capacity to serve the 87 Project-generated students. Quailwood Elementary, which would serve a small portion of the Project site, is not expected to receive a substantial number of new students. It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, Project generated students would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, the proposed Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50 which would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts for the purposes of CEQA. With payment of the required fees, impacts to Columbia and Quailwood Elementary Schools would be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would generate approximately 23 new junior high students at full buildout. The addition of 23 new students to Fruitvale Junior High, which currently serves the Project, would bring the total enrollment to approximately 738, which would further contribute to the current overcrowding of the school, but would not exceed the five-year projected student enrollment of 850-875 students. Although the additional students generated by the proposed Project would not exceed the projected enrollment at Fruitvale Junior High, the school would not have adequate capacity to serve the 23 Project-generated students. It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, Project generated students would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, the proposed Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50 which is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. The proposed Project is currently located within the boundaries of both Liberty and Bakersfield High Schools. The area of the Project site west of Coffee Road (i.e., the residential portion) would be served mainly by Liberty High School. Should other portions of the Project site generate additional students based upon the location of the parent’s employment within the Project site east of Coffee Road, those students could potentially attend Bakersfield High School. The proposed Project would generate approximately 79 new students. It is anticipated that the school would have adequate capacity to serve the 79 Project-generated students. It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, Project generated students would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-46 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, pursuant to SB 50, payment of the developer fees required by State law provides full and complete mitigation of the impacts. Thus, compliance with SB 50 would reduce the Projects impact upon Liberty High School and Bakersfield High School to a less than significant level. 2. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase the demand for school services and facilities in the Project area. Specifically, the related projects with residential components would generate approximately 32,581 elementary school students, 8,826 junior high school students, and 17,209 high school students. While there is no official methodology for calculating the number of students generated by commercial or industrial development, developer fees would be applied to the related projects with residential, commercial or industrial development. The payment of developer fees is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts per the provisions of SB 50. Therefore, cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures Under the provisions of SB 50, a project’s impacts on school facilities are fully mitigated via the payment of the requisite new school construction fees. Since the Applicant is required to pay these fees, Project impacts would be fully mitigated. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation As the Project will comply with SB 50, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to schools. PARKS/RECREATION 1. Environmental Impacts The Project would generate an increase of approximately 1,284 permanent residents that would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. The Project includes four acres of open space within the proposed residential areas in addition to landscaped areas throughout the site that would represent a minimum of ten percent of the Project area. The four acres includes a 2.6-acre park and 1.4 acres of open City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-47 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 space along the southern Project boundary The Project also includes approximately two acres of trails and paseos throughout the Project site. The integrated network of on-site park and recreational facilities would tie into existing off-site facilities as feasible. The Applicant would maintain all on-site facilities. The Municipal Code identifies a ratio of 2.5 acres of parks per 1,000 persons, which would require the provision of 3.2 acres of park and recreation area for the proposed Project. The Quimby Act identifies a ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents, which would require the provision of 3.8 acres of park and recreation area. The four acres provided by the Project is at a rate of 3.1 acres per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the existing ratio of 1.88 acres per 1,000 persons as well as the regulatory requirements of both the City of Bakersfield and the Quimby Act. In addition, the proposed Project would include improvements to the park space in an amount equivalent to one acre per thousand persons. As such, the proposed Project proposes parkland in excess of existing regulatory requirements. If the Project were to satisfy the Municipal Code requirement of 3.2 acres exclusively through parkland dedication, the City would be responsible for the cost of both improvements and ongoing maintenance. The Project proposes to pay for park improvements and provide maintenance of the parks in perpetuity by a property owner’s association. Therefore, by providing parkland at a ratio consistent with 2.5 acres per 1,000 population, improvements valued in excess of the fees established within the City’s parkland dedication ordinance, and ongoing maintenance in perpetuity, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. The General Plan identifies a goal of four acres per 1,000 residents for regional recreational opportunities. Although the Project would increase demand on some regional facilities, the increased demand would be short-term in nature, during distinct times of the year. Although the proposed General Plan amendment would change the on-site designation of Open Space, Parks and Recreational Facilities (OS-P), the Project would provide parks and open space in exceedance of requirements and existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to recreational resources would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in the Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional parks and recreational staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. Like the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to review and would dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s Municipal Code, General Plan, and the Quimby Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-48 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to parks and recreation. LIBRARIES 1. Environmental Impacts The Southwest Branch library, which serves the Project area, currently serves a population of approximately 48,904 persons. By 2020, it is forecasted that the service population for the Southwest Branch will be 65,342. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the number of residents and employees that could increase the demand for library facilities within northwest Bakersfield. It is anticipated that the Project’s employees would patronize libraries near their homes during non-work hours rather than libraries near their place of work, therefore, it is expected that employees employees would not create a notable demand on the Southwest Branch. The proposed Project would contribute 1,284 new residents, or approximately 7.8 percent of the forecasted library patron growth. This increase in population is within the expected population growth for the library service area (LSA). The Kern County Library Facilities Master Plan (“Plan”) provides the County’s 20-year plan for improving and expanding library branches. According to the Plan, seven new libraries are proposed within Kern County. These three new library branches have been identified as the Rosedale West, Rosedale East, and Southwest Bakersfield (Gosford/Panama) libraries. The Plan states that the existing Southwest Branch will need to be replaced by a 46,607 square foot facility by 2020 in order to adequately serve the projected population of over 65,000. The construction of these three libraries would relieve some of the demand on the Southwest Branch, while improving library access to local residents. Currently, no existing library serves the Rosedale area, which is west of the Project site. The addition of permanent residents to the City of Bakersfield that would be served by the Southwest Branch LSA is consistent with anticipated population growth as discussed in Section IV.L, Population and Housing. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding library services. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-49 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 2. Cumulative Impacts Approximately 223,375 new residents would be generated by the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR in combination with the proposed Project. Specifically, the additional residential population would lead to increased demands for additional library staffing, volumes, and facilities over time. This need would be would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and the related projects would be required to contribute. Therefore, cumulative impacts on library services would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to libraries. O. Utilities WASTEWATER 1. Environmental Impacts After full implementation of the proposed Project, excess capacity would remain within the sewer lines serving the Project site. Thus, the existing sewer lines have adequate capacity to meet the Project’s demand at buildout, and as a result, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Since the existing facilities are sufficient to meet the Project’s demand at buildout, the demand attributable to each development phase would also be accommodated by these facilities. The Project would also add a total of 1.55 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow at full buildout in 2035 to Treatment Plant No. 3. The planned 16 MGD expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 from 16 MGD to 32 MGD, which is anticipated to be completed by April of 2010, would provide sufficient capacity. As the expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 would be completed prior to the occupancy of Phase I of the Project, sufficient treatment capacity would be available to meet the demand generated by each development phase as well as the Project at buildout. Therefore, Treatment Plant No. 3 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-50 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 has adequate capacity to accommodate and appropriately treat the Project’s demand consistent with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQB) and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. As such, Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase wastewater generation. However, increased wastewater flows throughout the Treatment Plant No. 3 service area would be served by the expansion of this facility from a capacity of 16 MGD to 32 MGD. Although, this facility only has an existing available excess capacity of approximately 0.5 MGD, a portion of the expansion capacity is expected to be made available prior to completion of the expansion project. As shown in Table IV.O-3, Cumulative Wastewater Generation, in Section IV.O, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, the 50 of the 85 related projects that are within the service area of Treatment Plant No. 3 would generate approximately 12,175,952 gpd or 12 MGD of wastewater. In combination with the approximately 1.55 MGD or 1,551,161 gpd of the proposed Project, the total cumulative wastewater generation would be approximately 14 MGD or 13,727,113 gpd. This is approximately 44 percent of the 32 MGD capacity of Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition to the existing flow of 15.5 MGD of wastewater, the additional 14 MGD would not exceed the 32 MGD capacity of the Treatment Plant No. 3. Out of the other 35 related projects, two have been withdrawn; therefore, only 33 remaining projects would be served by one of the following four other major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2, the NORSD Plant, Mount Vernon/Panorama District Plant, and the Lamont Public Utility District Plant. However, as noted elsewhere in this Draft EIR, these projects have been included in the cumulative impacts totals to represent a conservative estimate. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division is proposing to construct Treatment Plant No. 4. It is anticipated that these facilities would have adequate capacity to serve and treat wastewater generated by the related projects not served by Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition, many of the related projects consist of redevelopment of existing developed sites that would result in the elimination of existing wastewater generation patterns at these sites. Therefore, it is concluded that Treatment Plant No. 3 has adequate capacity to serve and adequately treat wastewater from the proposed Project and related projects within its service area as they are developed. The potential need for the related projects to require upgraded wastewater lines to accommodate wastewater generated by these projects is site-specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. Cumulative increases in wastewater generation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-51 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures As noted, with the approved and funded expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project and impacts would be less than significant. As such, no mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. However, the City has recommended that Mitigation Measures O-1 and -2 be implemented to ensure impacts would be less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to wastewater. Cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. WATER 1. Environmental Impacts a. Water Demand The Project has an average projected water demand of approximately 803 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). The historical groundwater elevation trends for the area show that the groundwater aquifer has sufficient capacity and storage available for the proposed Project for a multi-year period including groundwater recharge and extraction. Although, the Kern County subbasin as a whole is currently reported as being in overdraft, the City of Bakersfield’s investigation has shown that the portion of the basin underlying the City is not in overdraft. This is largely due to the recharge efforts of the City that help recover and prevent overdraft. The City has 200,000 AF of annual water supply available as of 2007. The current demand for the City’s service area is 38,679 AF. The future demand for the City’s service area in 2035 is forecasted to be 73,170 AF/yr. The Project requires a net increase of approximately 781 AF/yr at Project buildout. As the Project’s demand for water is less than one percent of the available water supply at Project buildout, the Project would not significantly change conditions throughout the overall basin or sub-basin groundwater balance. In addition, the project has incorporated several design features to conserve water, including installation of low-flow fixtures, efficient irrigation systems, and drought-tolerant landscaping. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project from existing City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-52 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Fire Flow Per City Fire Department guidelines, fire flow requirements for commercial uses are 2,000 to 3,500 gpm for 2 hours, whereas the required fire flow for residential uses are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for one hour with 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure, and 1,000 gpm flow for two hours with 20 psi residual pressure. A projection of pressure to flow rate shows that the maximum commercial flow rate of 3,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours can be provided. Therefore, there is sufficient water volume to serve the Project’s fire flow demands and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed Project in conjunction conjunction with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase water demand. However, as determined by the Water Supply Assessment for the Project, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project and other projected demands included in the Urban Water Management Plan. These related projects would consume approximately 12,865,746 gpd of water. In combination with the approximately 696,769 gpd of the Project, the total cumulative water use would be 13,562,515 gpd or 13.6 MGD. This is less than one percent of the expected available 2035 supply of approximately 198 MGD (221,500 AF/yr divided by 1,120 MGD). Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project and related projects from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to water. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-53 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 SOLID WASTE 1. Environmental Impacts The proposed Project would result in an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 50 tons per day at Project buildout. The Project’s solid waste generation by development phase is as follows: (1) Phase I – nine tons/day; (2) Phase II – seven tons/day; and (3) Phase III – five tons/day. Solid waste generation at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the available capacity of the Bena landfill. Therefore, the landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs for each development phase as well as at Project buildout. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Kern County and the City of Bakersfield anticipate that the Bena Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in demand. Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR could result development of residential, commercial, and recreational uses in the City of Bakersfield. These related projects would generate approximately 281 pounds per day of solid waste. In combination with the 21 tons per day generated by the Project, the total cumulative solid waste generation would be approximately 302 tons per day, which can be accommodated by the existing landfill capacity. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-54 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ELECTRICITY 1. Environmental Impacts PG&E has indicated that there is available supply and distribution capacity to meet the Project’s demands attributable to each development phase as well as the Project at buildout (425,543 kilowatts per year of electricity demand). However, PG&E cannot definitively determine whether existing lines can provide power to the Project at this time. This determination would be made by PG&E based on the actual power demand for the Project. If the existing system can accommodate Project demand, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. If the existing facilities are not able to accommodate Project demand, there is a potential for an impact to occur. The Project Applicant would coordinate with PG&E staff early in the planning stages to insure that adequate service and facilities are incorporated into the proposed Project. Further, mitigation measures are proposed, which include the addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation, and/were construction of a new substation within the Project Site, in order to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2. Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would create an increase in electrical demand resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. However, PG&E anticipates that it would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in electrical demand. The related projects would use approximately 578,964,800 kilowatt hours per year of electricity. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure O-1 is listed in Table II-1, Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, at the end of this Section. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measure O-1, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to electricity. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-55 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 NATURAL GAS 1. Environmental Impacts The Project would result in an increased natural gas demand of 23.5 million cubic feet per day. The Gas Company has indicated that there is available supply to meet the Project’s demands during each development phase as well as the Project at buildout. The proposed Project, with the exception of a limited number of connections, would not require additions to or modifications of the existing off-site distribution system. Notwithstanding that, the Project would require the upgrading and expansion of the on-site system, which is incorporated into the Project as a design feature. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. 2. Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would create an increase in the demand for natural gas resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. Notwithstanding that, the Gas Company anticipates that they would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in natural gas demand. The related projects would consume approximately 394,904,049 cubic feet per month of natural gas. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. 4. Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to natural gas. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-56 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-57 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Land Use Planning Physical/Zoning Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Consistency with Polices/Plans Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Urban Decay Physical Deterioration Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Transportation/Traffic Intersection LOS Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Potentially Significant The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (intersections are named with corresponding intersection numbers noted in parentheses) under the “Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria”: Phase I (Year 2015) C-1. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-2. Coffee Road & Norris Road (20): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-3. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared southbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one leftturn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-4. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound and northbound directions. C-5. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound through lane to provide four through lanes and one right-turn lane and widening the westbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Install split signal phasing in the east/west direction. C-6. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): 56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound leftturn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-7. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): Increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane. C-8. Real Road & Stockdale Highway (81): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-58 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-9. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane (83): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-10. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue (91): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-11. California Avenue & Mohawk Street (95): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-12. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue (96): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound leftturn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Phase II (Year 2035) C-13. Coffee Road & Hageman Road (9): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-14. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound and southbound shared through/right-turn lanes into separate through lanes and right-turn lanes to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction and two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction. C-15. Coffee Road & & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-16. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (38): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-59 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact C-17. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway (44): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-18. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the northbound direction. C-19. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway (49): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared northbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-20. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-21. Chester Avenue & 24th Street (63): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared westbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-22. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Phase III (Year 2035) C-23. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the westbound direction. C-24. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): Increase intersection capacity by converting the westbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-25. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound leftturn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-26. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-60 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact C-27. Gosford Street & Camino Media (98): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Intersection LOS Analysis #2: (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Potentially Significant The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (intersections are named with corresponding intersection numbers noted in parentheses) under the “Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria” applying the Green-Time Priority Analysis: Phase I (Year 2015) C-28. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway (25): Improve intersection operation by installing overlapping rightturn signal phasing in all four directions. C-29. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two leftturn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway (31): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in both directions. C-32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-33. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-34. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide four through lanes and two rightturn lanes in the westbound direction. C-35. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): This improvement Significant and Unavoidable City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-61 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. Phase II (Year 2035) C-36. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one rightturn lane. C-37. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-38. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-39. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane. C-40. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. C-41. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway (57): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-42. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the eastbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide three through lanes and two rightturn lanes in the eastbound direction. Street Segment Potentially Significant The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (street segments are named with corresponding segment number): Significant and Unavoidable City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-62 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Phase I (Year 2015) C-43. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway (29): Add one lane in each direction from Rosedale Highway to the BNSF railroad overpass. C-44. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (30): Add one lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way. C-45. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (44): Add one lane in each direction from the BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road. C-46. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road (45): Add one lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to the Westside Parkway. C-47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (47): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue C-48. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (61): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway. C-49. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (65): Add one lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway. Phase II (Year 2035) C-50. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (14): Add one lane in each direction from Olive Road to Hageman Road. C-51. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway (28): Add one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway. C-52. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street (31): Add one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street. C-53. Gosford Avenue south of Ming Avenue (77): Add one lane in each direction Ming Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard. Phase III (Year 2035) C-54. Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway (62): Add one lane in each direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-63 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Freeway Segment Potentially Significant C-55. The Project shall pay a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane) consistent with Caltrans Fair Share methodology that is based on a project participating financially in a freeway improvement according to its proportional impact on the affected freeway facility. Less Than Significant Cumulative Intersection and Street Segment LOS Potentially Significant C-56. Prior to the commencement of Phase II, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared a traffic confirmation analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase II for review and approval by the City. Prior to the commencement of Phase III, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared an additional confirmation traffic analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase III for review and approval by the City. Significant and Unavoidable Construction Construction Traffic Less Than Significant C-57. The Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Bakersfield. Construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements: a. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. b. Provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person). c. Scheduling construction activities that affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. d. Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible. e. Consolidating truck deliveries to the extent feasible. f. Provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-and offsite, to the extent feasible. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-64 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact g. Construction-related vehicles shall not park on any residential street. h. No construction activity shall block access to any residence or place of business, without prior consent or compensation. i. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing, and protection barriers. Alternative Transportation Less Than Significant C-58. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project on existing bus lines. Less Than Significant Mitigation Impacts Less Than Significant C-59. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Applicant shall guarantee funding and/or construction for the completion of all required traffic mitigation measures for that phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Less Than Significant Aesthetics Visual Character Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Light and Glare Less Than Significant D-1. All on-site lighting shall be designed to meet the City’s current safety, security, and design standards. Less Than Significant Urban Decay Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Geology & Soils Fault Rupture Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Ground Shaking Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Liquefaction Potentially Significant E-1. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation shall be completed to confirm specific site conditions and design level geotechnical engineering aspects including the potential for liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope instability, and expansive soil. Recommendations and mitigation identified in this evaluation shall be implemented. Less Than Than Significant Subsidence Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-65 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Dynamic Compaction Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1. Less Than Significant Dam Failure Less Than Significant E-2. The Project shall incorporate an emergency notification plan in the event of dam failure into the design of the proposed theater in coordination with the City of Bakersfield and shall develop and maintain plans for safe shutdown and efficient evacuation from this facility. Less Than Significant Slope Stability Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1. Less Than Significant Soil Erosion Potentially Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Expansive Soil Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1. Less Than Significant Hydrology and Water Quality Storm Water Runoff Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Flooding and Inundation Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Surface Water Quality Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Groundwater Hydrology Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Groundwater Quality Potentially Significant F-1 The two operational oil wells may continue in operation and the monitoring and extraction wells shall continue to be used in association with on-site remediation activities. No existing wells shall be used on-site for water supply purposes. On-site oil wells that will be abandoned on the Project site shall be abandoned in accordance with State and local guidelines and requirements. Damaged on-site oil wells shall be repaired or abandoned in accordance with DOGGR. F-2 Wellheads (including monitoring wells) shall be locked to reduce the potential for unauthorized access. F-3 The Project does not propose to develop any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells. However, in the event that it becomes necessary to drill or construct any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells, the nature and extent of existing soil and groundwater contamination on site shall be determined. Oil wells or remediation monitoring wells shall not be completed in Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-66 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact contaminated soils, nor shall drilling, wells, or construction activities provide conduits for contaminants to move between aquifers. Any new well shall meet the City of Bakersfield, State of California DOGGR, and local agency requirements. Wastewater Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Soil and Groundwater Contamination Potentially Significant G-1 If buried drilling mud pits are found on-site, additional assessment including, but not limited to, identification of the drilling mud pits, collection and analysis of soil samples for evaluation of the materials within the former drilling mud pits, shall be conducted. Any additional assessment shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. G-2 If soil contamination is discovered (i.e., by sight, smell, visual, etc.) during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented so as to render the area suitable for grading activities to resume. The contaminated soil discovered shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ (in-place), or otherwise managed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and the Soil Management Plan proposed in Mitigation Measure G-4. G-4 A Soil Management Plan for the management and possible reuse or disposal of contaminated soils on the Project site shall be prepared prior to any development activities in portions of the site with impacted soils. Components of the soil management plan shall include, but not be limited to: • A summary of existing soil analytical data for the site, evaluation and incorporation of data from prior Health and Safety Plans (HASP), including exposure monitoring data associated with assessment or remedial activity conducted at the site; • Worker notification and training addressing the potential for worker contact with soils containing hazardous levels of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons; • Provisions for soil and air screening during the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The soil and air screening shall be conducted by a consultant independent of the earthmoving and general contractor conducting earthmoving activities during development of the site. Soil and air screening provisions shall include visual identification of suspect contaminated soils, Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-67 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact soil and air screening of soils by portable direct field reading instrumentation (such as a photoionization detector, or PID). Personal air monitoring shall be conducted for petroleum hydrocarbon components with established PELs, such as benzene. • Provisions for identification and evaluation of suspect contaminated soils, not previously identified at the site; and • Provisions for the management of known or suspected impacted soils, including mitigation measures, on-site reuse, or off-site disposal, following soil characterization and notification of appropriate local and state regulatory agencies. G-5. Areas associated with ASTs including any underground supply piping shall be evaluated prior to the commencement of construction activities in these areas. The evaluation shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. Emergency Procedures Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Hazardous Materials and Waste Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Above Ground Storage Tanks Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measures G-4 and G-5. Less Than Significant Underground Storage Tanks Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, and G-4. Less Than Significant ACB, LBP, and PCBs Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Existing and Abandoned Wells Potentially Significant G-3 If structures and structural foundations are proposed in close proximity to historically abandoned wells, a geotechnical assessment shall be completed to address subsurface structural requirements. Recommendations including setback distances from abandoned wells and potential well abandonment or re-abandonment pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.66.080 B and other applicable regulations, identified in this assessment shall be implemented. Less Than Significant Accidental Upset Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-68 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Remediation Activities Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Cumulative Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Oil and Mineral Resources Loss of availability of a known mineral resource Potentially Significant H-1. To provide continued access to underlying oil reserves, drilling sites shall be reserved in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.66.080 C. for the two active petroleum extraction wells. New construction and improvements in the vicinity of existing wells shall conform to City setback development standards and shall be developed in accordance with applicable regulations of the City of Bakersfield and Department of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Less Than Significant Biological Resources Compliance with Policies and Ordinances Potentially Significant I-1. To avoid impacting San Joaquin kit fox, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for the San Joaquin kit fox, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of off-site San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any San Joaquin kit fox identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-69 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying San Joaquin kit fox habitat land within Kern County. b) Within 30 days of initial ground disturbance, preconstruction clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the provisions of the MBHCP. Any potential, inactive or active kit fox dens identified as unavoidable, be monitored, excavated and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of the MBHCP and all guidelines, protocols and other provisions of the CDFG, USFWS, Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Survey windows for the San Joaquin kit fox can occur at anytime throughout the year. The survey shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department, prior to approval of a grading permit. c) Prior to earth disturbance phases of construction, all construction personnel shall be trained in sensitive species identification and avoidance techniques and be instructed to be on the lookout for kit fox dens during earth disturbance. Proof of training shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Any evidence, such as dens, observed at any time during construction, shall be promptly reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution. d) During construction, all pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of the kit fox. If not capped or otherwise covered, the openings shall be inspected twice daily in the morning and evening and prior to burial or closure, to ensure no kit foxes or other wildlife become entrapped or buried in pipes. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-70 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Significant I-2. To avoid impacting nesting birds, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for sensitive and nesting birds, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of off-site habitat for sensitive and nesting birds. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any sensitive or nesting birds identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of habitat impacts to sensitive or nesting birds. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-71 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying sensitive and nesting bird habitat land within Kern County. b) Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of any previously unidentified protected species, which are not addressed in the MBHCP. If encountered, the USFWS and CDFG shall be notified of previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to the CDFG and USFWS. No activities shall occur until Incidental Take authorization has been obtained from the CDFG and USFWS. USFWS. I-3. To avoid adverse impacts to Burrowing Owl, the following measures shall be implemented: a) Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the proposed Project’s impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status). Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities are required until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist: 1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500 foot buffer around any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active nest is observed during the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will flush any raptor to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-72 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact open space areas. A qualified biologist, or construction personnel under the direction of the qualified biologist, will then remove the nest site so raptors cannot return to a nest. b) The Project Applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys prior to ground disturbance to ensure that no burrowing owls are present on-site and to ensure avoidance of direct take or accidental entrapment of burrowing owls. If nests are encountered, the use of agency Cultural Resources Historical Resources Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Archaeological Resources Less Than Significant J-1. During excavation and grading activities, if archaeological resources are discovered on site, the Project Developer/Contractor shall stop all work and shall retain a qualified archaeologists to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes and regulations of the Native American Heritage Commission. J-2. If human remains are discovered as a result of the proposed Project during development, all activity shall cease immediately, the Project Developer/Contractor shall notify the Kern County Coroner's Office immediately under state law, and a qualified archeologist and Native American monitor shall be contacted. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. Less Than Significant Paleontological Resources Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Human Remains Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measures J-2. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-73 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Air Quality Construction-Related Project Impacts Potentially Significant K-1 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized with regard to dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppres sant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. K-2 All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-3 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall effectively control fugitive dust emissions via the application of water or by presoaking. K-4 During the demolition of the existing on-site buildings, all exterior surfaces of the buildings shall be wetted during demolition. K-5 When materials are transported off-site, all materials shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. K-6 All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) K-7 Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-8 Trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the Project site and at the end of each workday. K-9 Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. K-10 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. K-11 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent toward public roadways. K-12 Install wheel washers for exiting trucks, or wash off all truck equipment leaving the site whenever trackout exceeds 50 feet. K-13 Install wind breaks at windward sides of construction areas. K-14 Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-74 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation). K-15 All diesel equipment shall be fitted with a CARB certified diesel particulate filter as previously described. K-16 All diesel equipment shall operate on ultra low sulfur, low NOx fuel where available or NOx reducing DOC-SCR as previously described. Noise Temporary Increases in Noise (Construction) Potentially Significant L-1. Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses. L-2. The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. L-3. Barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains a minimum of eight feet in height shall be erected along the Project site’s western, southern, and eastern boundary to minimize the amount of noise during construction on the surrounding off-site single-family residential uses. Less Than Significant Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Operational Traffic Noise (Off-Site Locations) Potentially Significant No mitigation is available. Significant and Unavoidable Operational Traffic Noise (On-Site Locations) Potentially Significant L-4 With submission of a subdivision map on the proposed residential area, the Project Applicant shall submit an acoustical study to determine necessary design features or treatments for the proposed residential buildings or structures such that the intruding noise from roadway traffic on these noisesensitive receptors are limited to 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, the following methods: • Increasing the distance between the noise source and the residential use; • Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; • Orienting buildings to shield outdoor activity areas from a noise source; • Locating noise-sensitive living spaces such as bedrooms and balconies away from noise sources; • Erect a noise wall between the residential use and the noise source; and Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-75 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact • Constructing all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential structures at the Project site with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction that provides a Sound Transmission Class of 50 or greater as defined in the California Building Code (CBC). Land Use Compatibility Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant On-Site Non-Vehicular Noise Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Railroad Noise Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Operational Groundborne Vibration Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Cumulative Noise Potentially Significant No feasible mitigation is available. Significant and Unavoidable Population and Housing Population Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Housing Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Employment Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Public Services Fire Protection Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Police Protection Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Schools Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Parks and Recreation Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project II. Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Page II-76 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table II-1 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Libraries Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Cumulative Wastewater Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. However, the City has recommended the following measures to ensure the project’s cumulative impacts would be further reduced. O-1. Prior to or along with submittal of a tentative subdivision map, site plan review application, or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sewer study to the City Engineer to determine and verify sufficient sewer capacities downstream of the project. If the City Engineer determines there is not adequate capacity, Mitigation Measure O-2 as follows shall be required. O-2. If the City Engineer determines there is not adequate capacity, the following shall be required: The developer shall participate in a planned sewer district and/or construct additional sewer infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction of the project site shall be phased to accommodate sewer capacities as approved by the City Engineer. Less Than Significant Water Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Solid Waste Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Electricity Potentially Significant O-3 If the existing facilities are not able to accommodate Project demand, measures shall be developed in coordination with PG&E and may include one or both of the following: a. Addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation; and/or b. Construction of a new sub-station within the Project site. A new substation substation would require a new feed from the existing transmission lines. Construction of a new substation would also require approval by the City of Bakersfield. Less Than Significant Natural Gas Less Than Significant No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2010. Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-1 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Coffee-Brimhall LLC (the “Applicant”) is proposing the development of the Bakersfield Commons Project (the “Project”), a 255-acre mixed-use development consisting of retail, office, and residential uses. The 255-acre Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (the “City”), east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway. As shown on the Regional Vicinity Map, Figure III-1, regional access to the Project site is provided via State Route 99 (SR-99) and State Highway 58 (Rosedale Highway), located approximately 2.4 miles to the east and 0.5 mile to the north, respectively. The Project site can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Gosford topographic quadrangle map Township 29S, Range 27E, MDB&M in the southern half of Section 29 and the western half of Section 28 as well as the Oildale topographic quadrangle map Township 29S, Range 27E, MDB&M in the western half of Section 28. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) for the Project site are 368-020-30, 32, 33, 34, and 35; 368-040-01, 02, 12, and 13; and 368-070-01 and 02. Access to the Project site is provided primarily via Coffee Road (an arterial alignment) which bisects the property, and Brimhall Road (a collector alignment) along the Project’s south boundary. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway is adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site and bisects the eastern portion of the site. The Kern River is located approximately one half mile south of the Project site. Approximately 200 feet of the Project site is bordered on the west by unincorporated Kern County land. The Project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the City. Coffee Road, a north-south roadway, bisects the Project site into two distinct areas as shown in Figure III-2, Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity. The first area to the west of Coffee Road consists of approximately 184 acres (including a 20 acre area with transmission towers) and is generally bounded by Coffee Road to the east, the BNSF Railway to the north, Brimhall Road to the south, and Windsong Street to the west. The second area to the east of Coffee Road consists of approximately 71 acres located north and south of the BNSF Railway and is generally bounded by Coffee Road to the west and the Friant Kern Canal to the east. The southern boundary of the Project site east of Coffee Road is located approximately 1,750 feet north of Brimhall Road. The Project site also includes an approximately 20-acre, 330-footwide-strip of land, which contains a transmission corridor owned in fee by PG&E, and a drainage area owned by the City. The Applicant has easement rights to use the transmission corridor for uses consistent with the existing transmission towers, including, without limitation, surface surface parking, streets, open space, and drainage areas. Refer to Figure III-2, Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity, for an aerial photo showing the Project site in a local context. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-2 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Figure III-1 Regional and Vicinity Map Source: Psomas, 2007. PROJECT SITE City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-4 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Figure III-2 Aerial Photograph of Project Vicinity Source: Psomas, 2007. Feet 0 600 1200 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-6 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-7 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Existing Site Conditions The majority of the Project site, approximately 200 acres of the 255-acre Project site, is currently vacant. Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc. (“Pan”) owns and operates a trucking company within an approximately six acre portion of the Project site located to the east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway. Pan’s operations include an approximately 1,400-square-foot office building, truck repair and maintenance facility and parking area for its trucks. Pan began operations in 1976. Currently it operates 37 trucks that haul petroleum products in 11 western states. Additionally, there are three sub haulers that haul petroleum products for Pan that operate their trucks out of the Pan facility. There is also an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces located in the northeast corner of the Project site. The building is currently leased to ConocoPhillips. There are also two active oil wells located on portions of the Project site east of Coffee Road, one north, and one south of the BNSF Railway. A portion of the Project site, east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF Railway, was used as a petroleum refinery and bulk storage facility from 1923 to 1995. This facility was purchased by the Applicant in 1978 and operated the refinery until its closure in 1995. The former refinery and associated facilities encompassed an area of approximately 45.7 acres on the northeast portion of the Project site. Beginning in 1985, subsurface soil and groundwater assessment activities revealed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents within both soil and groundwater underlying the former refinery and associated tank farms on a portion of the Project site. As a result, a remediation program, which involves the removal of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents from the soil and groundwater beneath a portion of the Project site, was commenced in 1985 that continues today. The remediation program is limited to a small portion of the Project site east of Coffee Road and will not impact development of that area or the large remainder of the Project site. In addition to the above uses, City retention areas, which currently occur over approximately 2.5 acres, are also present on the Project site. All of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission towers would be demolished as part of the Project. Surrounding Uses Adjacent land uses include residential uses to the west and south, and commercial uses to the east, south and southeast. Industrial land uses are also present in the Project vicinity. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway, and the Big West refinery (formerly owned by Shell Oil and also known as Flying J) is located further to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal. The actual facilities associated with the PG&E power plant are not located immediately adjacent to the Project site, as the railroad right-of-way separates the Project site City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-8 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 from the former PG&E power plant. Additionally, to the north of the Project site is a Lowes Home Improvement Center and the Rosedale Highway commercial corridor that includes a variety of commercial uses, such as the Northwest Promenade shopping center. B. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The proposed Project's Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR was distributed to public agencies, the public and interested parties on or about April 4, 2007. The Notice of Preparation described the proposed Project as the development of up to 1,650,000 square feet of retail and theater uses and up to 1,000,000 square feet of office uses. The Notice of Preparation also described a project that would include the development of 425 residential units. The Project was anticipated to be developed in three phases with Project buildout anticipated by the year 2030. A public scoping meeting was held on April 24, 2007 to allow the public to comment on the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the project. Since the Notice of Preparation was circulated and the public scoping meeting held, the project Applicant has reduced the size of the proposed Project and modified the anticipated buildout date. The proposed Project is described in detail in Section III.C below. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project is intended to create an inviting community and pedestrian-oriented environment with retail, theater, office, and residential uses as shown in Figure III-3, Conceptual Site Plan. The Project is proposed to be developed in three phases. A tabular listing of the proposed land uses at project buildout, forecasted to be 2035, is presented in Table III-1. Table III-1 also shows the opening day development (Phase I) anticipated to be completed in 2015, Phase II is anticipated to be completed between 2025 and 2035, although for purposes of this Draft EIR it was assumed to be completed by 2035. Phase III is anticipated to be completed by 2035. Additional information regarding the Project’s three phases is provided below. As shown in Table III-1, the Project proposes the development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses. In addition, the Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units consisting of 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family units. While the Applicant has not yet identified the specific types of retail uses that would be located at the Project site, it is anticipated that on-site retail uses could include an urban lifestyle retail center west of Coffee Road and community-serving retail east of Coffee Road. Lifestyle centers cater to the retail needs and lifestyle pursuits of consumers in the market area, and typically have an open-air configuration, landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas and include at least 50,000 square feet of retail space occupied by national chain specialty stores in addition to local independent specialty stores. Lifestyle City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-9 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 centers usually include one or more restaurants, a multiplex cinema, and reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. Table III-1 Proposed Project Development Summary Proposed Project Component Gross Acres Proposed Development Opening Day/Phase I (2015) Phases I and II (2035)b Project Buildout (All 3 Phases) (2035)b Commercial Retail 136 800,000 sf a 1,400,000 sf a 1,400,000 sf a Office 56 200,000 sf 400,000 sf 600,000 sf Commercial Subtotal 192 1,000,000 sf 1,800,000 sf 2,000,000 sf Residential 43 0 du 0 du 425 du Development Subtotal 235 1,000,000 sf 0 du 1,800,000 sf 0 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area 20 N/A N/A N/A Total Project Site 255 N/A N/A N/A Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Includes 70,000 square feet of multiplex cinema. b Cumulative development total. Phases II and III can only be developed after the City determines that traffic mitigation is available to address Phase II and III development, based on a traffic confirmation analysis. Source: Psomas 2007. All acreages identified above are approximate. General Plan Land Use and Zoning The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Map designates the Project site with the following designations: HI (Heavy Industrial), LI (Light Industrial), GC (General Commercial), LR (Low-Density Residential), OS-P (Parks and Recreational Facilities), and PS (Public and Private School). The area of the Project site located east of Coffee Road is designated LI and HI. Within the area of the Project site located west of Coffee Road, the southwest portion is designated LR, with a small area in the center designated OS-P and PS. The northern portion of the Project site and the portion adjacent to Coffee Road are designated as LI. A small portion of the southeast corner of the Project site is designated GC. Approximately 16 acres of the transmission corridor is designated OS-P, while the remaining four acres (approximate) are designated as LI. A summary of the existing land use designations is presented in Table III-2 and shown in the context of the surrounding area in Figure III-4. The Project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment, which proposes to reclassify approximately 71 acres of the site to GC (General Commercial), 141 acres to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), and 24 acres to HMR (High-Medium Density Residential) land uses. Under the proposed Project plan, the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-10 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 westernmost 19 acres of the Project site would be developed in accordance with the existing LR (Low-Density Residential) designation. The 20-acre transmission corridor would be reclassified as MUC from the existing designations of OS-P and LI. As the site is not proposed for a neighborhood school facility, the Public and Private Schools (PS) designation is no longer applicable and that acreage has been incorporated into the MUC area. The General Plan Amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a mix of uses on the periphery of urban areas as described in the Land Use element of the City's General Plan. The proposed land use designations would provide needed flexibility to respond to changing market needs. The existing land use designations for the Project site and surrounding area are as shown on the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, adopted by the City of Bakersfield on December 11, 2002. A summary of the proposed land use designations is presented, and compared to the existing land use designations, in Table III-2, Existing and Proposed Land Use and Zoning, and Figure III-4, Existing and Proposed Land Use. The Project site is currently zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing), M-2 (General Manufacturing), C-2 (Regional Commercial), R-1 (One-Family Dwelling), and the transmission corridor is zoned OS (Open Space) and M-1. Within the area of the Project site located west of Coffee Road, the southwest corner is zoned R-1 with the northern portion zoned M-1. A portion of the southeast corner of the Project site is zoned C-2 and the portion of the site adjacent to Coffee Road and north of the southeast corner is zoned M-2. Approximately 16 acres of the transmission corridor are zoned OS, with the remaining approximately 4 acres adjacent to the BNSF railroad, zoned M-1. The portion of the Project site located east of Coffee Road is entirely zoned M-2. A summary of the existing zoning designations is presented in Table III-2 and are shown in the context of the surrounding area in Figure III-5, Existing and Proposed Zoning. The existing zoning designations for the Project site and surrounding area are as shown on the Zoning Map for the City of Bakersfield, dated April 9, 2009. The Project proposes zone changes to reclassify approximately 216 acres of the site to the following zone classifications: 71 acres of C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development), 141 acres of C-C/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development), and 24 acres of R-3/PUD (Multiple-Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development). Under the proposed Project plan, the westernmost 19 acres of the Project site would be developed in accordance with the existing R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zoning designation. The 20-acre transmission corridor is proposed to be zoned C-C. A summary of the proposed zoning designations is presented, and compared to the existing zoning designations, in Tables III-2 and Figure III-5. Prior to development, the property owner/developer shall submit specific development plans for Planning Commission approval. This shall include any site plans and elevations. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-11 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table III-2 Existing and Proposed Land Use and Zoning Designation Existing Acreage Proposed Acreage Proposed Square Footage General Plan Land Use Heavy Industrial (HI) 36 --Light Industrial (LI) 65 --Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) -121 1,200,000 General Commercial (GC) 12 71 800,000 Low-Density Residential (LR) 113 19 a -High-Medium Density Residential (HMR) -24 a -Open Space, Parks and Recreational Facilities (OS-P) 5 --Public and Private Schools (PS) 4 --Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (LI ) 4 --Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (OS-P) 16 --Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (MUC) -20 -Zoning General Manufacturing (M-2) 86 --Light Manufacturing (M-1) 15 --Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development (C-2/PCD) 12 71b 800,000 Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development (C-C/PCD) -121b 1,200,000 Open Space (OS) ---One-Family Dwelling (R-1) 122 19 c -Multiple-Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development (R-3/PUD) -24 c, d -Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (M-1) 4 --Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (OS) 16 --Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (C-C) -20 -Project Site Total 255 255 2,000,000 a Open Space requirements of approximately 4 acres for the site would be provided within LR and HMR (proposed) areas. b The proposed Regional Commercial (C-2) zoning and Commercial Center (C-C) zoning will utilize a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) overlay. c Open Space requirements of approximately 4 acres for the site would be provided within R-1 and R-3 zoned (proposed) areas. d The proposed Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3) zoning will utilize a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. Source: Psomas 2007. All acreages identified above are approximate. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-12 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Figure III-3 Conceptual Site Plan Source: RTKL, 10/01/2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-14 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Feet 0 400 800 Source: Psomas, 2007. Feet 0 600 1200 Source: Psomas, 2009. Existing Land Use Legend Proposed Land Use Legend Figure III-4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations PS LR City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-16 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. Figure III-5 Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations 30 29 28 ROSEDALE HWY BRIMHALL RD CALLOWAY DR LANGLEY RD COFFEE RD Source: Psomas, 2009. Existing Zoning Feet 0 1000 2000 Feet 0 400 800 Legend Proposed Zoning Source: City of Bakersfield, 4/9/09. E-.5A Estate One Family Dwelling -.5 acre minimum E-1A Estate One Family Dwelling -1 acre minimum E-2.5A Estate One Family Dwelling -2.5 acre minimum E-2.5A-MH Estate One Family Dwelling -2.5 acre minimum -Mobile Home Overlay E (10,000) Estate One Family Dwelling -10,000 sq. ft. minimum E-10 Estate One Family Dwelling -10 acre minimum E (14,000) Estate One Family Dwelling -14,000 sq. ft. minimum E-HD Estate One Family Dwelling -Hillside Development Overlay E-CH Estate One Family Dwelling -Church Overlay E-PE Estate-Petroleum Extraction Overlay R-S Residential Suburban R-S-1A Residential Suburban -1 acre minimum R-S-1A-CH Residential Suburban -1 acre minimum -Church Overlay R-S-1A-FP-S Residential Suburban -1 acre minimum -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay R-S-1A-MH Residential Suburban-1acre minimum-Mobile Home Overlay R-S-2.5A Residential Suburban -2.5 acre minimum R-S-2.5A-FP-S Residential Suburban -2.5 acre minimum -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay R-S-2.5A-CH-FP-S Residential Suburban -2.5 acre minimum -Church and Flood Plain Secondary Overlay R-S-2.5A-HD Residential Suburban -2.5 acre minimum -Hillside Development Overlay R-S-5A Residential Suburban -5 acre minimum R-S-5A-FP-S Residential Suburban -5 acre minimum -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay R-S-5A-MH Residential Suburban -5 acre minimum -Mobile Home Overlay R-S-10A Residential Suburban -10 acre minimum R-S-10A-HD Residential Suburban -10 acre minimum -Hillside Development Overlay R-S-20A Residential Suburban -20 acre minimum R-1 One Family Dwelling R-1(8,500) One Family Dwelling -8,500 sq. ft. minimum R-1(10,000) One Family Dwelling -10,000 sq. ft. minimum R-1(12,000) One Family Dwelling -12,000 sq. ft. minimum R-1(18,000) One Family Dwelling -18,000 sq. ft. minimum R-1-CH One Family Dwelling -Church Overlay R-1-1-CH-HD One Family Dwelling -Church and Hillside Development Overlay R-1-FP-S One Family Dwelling -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay R-1-FP-S-HD One Family Dwelling -Flood Plain Secondary and Hillside Development Overlay R-1-HD One Family Dwelling -Hillside Development Overlay R-1-HOSP One Family Dwelling -Hospital Overlay R-1-P One Family Dwelling -Parking Overlay R-1 Combining R-1-SC One Family Dwelling -Senior Citizen Overlay R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. R-2-CH Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. -Church Overlay Zone R-2-HD Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. -Hillside Development Overlay R-2-MH Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. -Mobile Home Overlay R-2-P Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. -Parking Overlay R-2 Combining R-2 Combining -Hillside Development Overlay R-2-SC Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/2,500 sq. ft. -Senior Citizen Overlay R-3 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/1,250 sq. ft. R-3-CH Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/1,250 sq. ft. -Church Overlay R-3-MH Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/1,250 sq. ft. -Mobile Home Overlay R-3-P Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/1,250 sq. ft. -Parking Overlay R-3/P.C.D. Combining R-3/P.U.D. Combing R-4 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -1 unit/600 sq. ft. P.U.D. Planned Unit Development MH Mobile Home TT Travel Trailer Park R-H Residential Holding Commercial Zone Designations C-O Commercial and Professional Office C-O-HD Commercial and Professional Office -Hillside Development Overlay C-O Combining C-1 Limited Commercial C-1 Combining C-1-P Limited Commercial -Parking Overlay C-2 Commercial C-2 Combining C-2 Combining -Hillside Development Overlay C-2-FP-S Commercial -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay C-2-HD Commercial -Hillside Development Overlay C-2-MH Commercial -Mobile Home Overlay C-B Central Business C-C Civic Center C-C Combining -Petroleum Extraction Overlay P.C.D. Planned Commercial Development Industrial Zone Designations M-1 Light Manufacturing M-1-AA Light Manufacturing -Airport Approach Overlay M-1-FP-S Light Manufacturing -Flood Plan Secondary Overlay M-1-MH Light Manufacturing -Mobile Home Overlay M-1-T Light Manufacturing -Trailer Park Overlay M-2 General Manufacturing M-2-AA General Manufacturing -Airport Approach Overlay M-3 Heavy Industrial Resource Zone Designations A Agricultural A-MH Agriculture -Mobile Home Overlay A-FP-S Agricultural -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay A-FP-S-HD Agricultural -Flood Plain Secondary and Hillside Development Overlay A-HD Agricultural -Hillside Development Overlay A-AA Agricultural -Airport Approach Overlay A-20A Agricultural -20 acre minimum A-20A-FP-S Agricultural -20 acre minimum -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay A-20A-HD Agricultural -20 acre minimum -Hillside Development Overlay OS Open Space OS-FP-S Open Space -Flood Plain Secondary Overlay OS-HD Open Space -Hillside Development Overlay Other/Public Zone Designations DI Drilling Island FP-P Flood Plain Primary FP-S Flood Plain Secondary HOSP Hospital P Parking RE Recreation WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN WM-R1 One Family Dwelling Zone WM-R2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone -Lower to Medium Density WM-R3 Limited Multi-Family Dwelling Zone -Medium to Higher Density WM-CO Professional and Administrative Office Zone WM-GC General Commercial Zone WM-TC Town Center Zone WM-SU Special Use Zone SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY LIMITS Legend Project Area City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-18 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-19 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Design Concept The Project’s conceptual site plan reflects important policy directions set forth in the City’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, which addresses promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. The Project’s mix of uses would be built around a “main street” concept and would be developed in substantial conformance with the Site Plan as shown on Figure III, Conceptual Site Plan. Retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional “main street” to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. The Project proposes to transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure infrastructure and public services. The Project would create an inviting lifestyle retail center that integrates the diversity of proposed uses and meets the needs of the surrounding community. The Project would complement existing development trends in the area including a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment. The Project would provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City through creation of a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses to serve various users (e.g., residents, workers, tourists, visitors). The Project would establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of the on-site residents and improve the jobs-housing balance. The placement of a residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes would promote a walkable environment that reduces vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels. This walkable environment includes parks, trails, open space, and linkages to the City's existing park system, accommodating the recreational needs of residents. The Project would promote an environmentally sensitive balance of uses through incorporation of pedestrian scale design components into landscaped linkages along with grassy swales for improving water quality, landscaped areas for the detention and retention of drainage flows to improve water quality, greenscape and hardscape to soften the surrounding built environment, and bikeways, separate and distinct from walking paths. The Project’s land use plan sets forth an arrangement of land uses that would be both internally integrated as well as being integrated with adjacent and nearby off-site uses, particularly the existing residential areas to the south and west of the site. This would be realized by locating the Project’s commercial uses towards the eastern and central portions of the Project site and in so doing would take advantage of the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-20 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Project site’s frontages on Coffee and Brimhall Roads. Moving westward across the Project site, the proposed on-site land use patterns would then transition to multi-family residential uses, before reaching the western portion of the Project site wherein single-family residential uses are proposed. This arrangement of on-site land uses also would be integrated with the pattern of off-site land uses. For example, along Brimhall Road, the Project’s proposed on-site commercial uses would be located across from existing and planned commercial uses, while the Project’s proposed residential uses would be located across from the off-site existing residential uses to the south and west, which would provide a direct interface with the single-family residential uses located to the west of the Project site. Architectural Character Preliminary design concepts for the Project indicate that the Project would have a contemporary architectural design with articulated facades, appropriately scaled to the “main street” and pedestrians. Careful and judicial use of landmark buildings, as well as signage, distinctive landscape palettes, and other such elements would provide an identity and cohesiveness to the Project site. The architectural character would be specifically designed to stimulate pedestrian activity with continuity along the street frontage, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. Additionally, the colors and types of exterior building materials of the building facades and parking structures are anticipated to be reasonably complementary to the exterior of adjoining structures. All final design would be subject to additional review pursuant to the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) zone district. Lighting Lighting would also be an important component of the Project and would be used as a design tool to highlight architectural elements, landscaping, as well as for building tenant and Project signage. Lighting also would be an important tool for providing security and safety in parking areas, service passages, and common areas of the Project. The intent of the Project’s lighting design would be to contribute to the ambience of the nighttime village center, while providing a general overall level of illumination consistent with customary municipal safety standards. Lighting facilities for surface parking areas, vehicular access ways, and walkways within the Project site would not exceed a height of 40 feet as per City’s zoning code (Section 17.58.060 Parking Lots) for the C-2 zone. Light sources less than 50 feet from the property line of any residentially zoned or designated City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-21 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 lot or existing residential development would not exceed a height of 15 feet (Section 17.58.060). All lighting, including lighting of parking structures would be designed to be compatible with surrounding development; directed onto driveways, walkways and parking; and shielded away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way to minimize spillage of the illumination into the surrounding areas and to minimize glare or interference with vehicular traffic. Signage The Project’s signage program would be implemented in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Consistent with these provisions, the Project’s conceptual signage program includes a comprehensive sign program developed to regulate sign areas, heights, lighting, color, and materials, following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. Signage would be coordinated and designed depending on the type of signage (i.e., Project identification, tenant identification, directional, etc.) and the area of the Project in which the signage would be located (i.e., commercial, office or residential), as well as the location of the signage within the Project site (i.e., street edge, point of entry, interior, etc.). Building Heights The Project proposes uniform building heights within the commercial areas and uniform heights within the residential areas of the Project site except for select architectural features, as discussed below. Although the Zoning Ordinance allows building heights of up to 180-feet/12 stories within the CC zone, the Project is proposing to limit building heights to 90-feet/six stories. In the proposed R-1 and R-3/PUD zones, buildings would be consistent with Zoning Ordinance standards of 35-feet in height/(approximately two and one half stories). Roof and architectural elements/features such as, cupolas, domes, towers, elevator and stair penthouses, equipment screens and similar architectural features and unoccupied spaces would be permitted to project above the maximum building height, provided that they do not exceed a maximum height of 120-feet in the C-C and C-2 zones. Flagpoles and radio towers would be allowed to exceed the height limit of 30-feet. Sustainable Practices The Project would be an infill development that promotes the sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building. The Project incorporates many sustainable design features and will seek certification from the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) for, at a minimum, the retail components. A fundamental aspect of the Project’s design would be the incorporation of sustainable practices in site development and building design. This Project design component could include the use of alternative energy sources, as well as energy conserving City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-22 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 principles. Vegetation, trees, and structures would be used to create shaded walkways and shelters as well as the use of water features to cool and shade the outdoor experience for the pedestrian. Shading in portions of the parking areas also would be accomplished through structures that incorporate solar panels for green power as well as shading. Daylighting, views to the outdoors, and features such as shading devices, broad roof overhangs and similar architectural elements as well as other sustainable, “green” practices would be utilized throughout the Project. Compliance with state laws regarding water and energy conservation, including Title 24, also would result in increased efficiency and sustainability. Additionally, the Project encourages use of alternate forms of transportation by providing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities on site. Although the site is not currently served by public transit, it is anticipated that the site will be served in the future and facilities will be provided on site to promote the extension of transit lines to the site. Coordination with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project on existing bus lines would be included in Project implementation. Landscaping and Open Space Buildings, plantings, paving for pedestrians and other pedestrian treatments and destinations would provide a friendly, walkable urban environment by utilizing combinations of landscape, architecture, paseos, gardens, plazas and street plantings. Water quality facilities and design features would be integrated into the Project’s design by filtering drainage along landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings. All landscaped areas would have a complete water-conserving irrigation system and would incorporate incorporate native vegetation and drought tolerant plants. Street trees appropriate to the location and approved by the Recreation and Parks Department would be planted in public rights-of-way in accordance with City ordinances and standards for both street landscaping and parking lot shading. The Project would also provide open space to meet the recreational and aesthetic needs of Project residents, visitors, and occupants, while providing a buffer between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the south (refer to Figure III-3, Conceptual Site Plan). Portions of the transmission corridor would be used as landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, drainage areas, surface parking, and other compatible uses. Access and Circulation To accommodate a walkable environment, which encourages visitors and residents from the surrounding existing and new neighborhoods to experience the Project, street promenades would be a fundamental Project design component and the Project would feature feature wide, shaded walkways, which would connect with pedestrian paseos, plazas and open space areas. Office uses would be linked to the activity of the Project’s main street by landscaped walkways. Residential villages west of the lifestyle center would be City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-23 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 linked by the main street and to larger retail and office uses east of Coffee Road. The Project would also provide a network of bike trails and lanes, which would be separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, as appropriate, as well as bike racks throughout the site. The bike trails would be designed to link with future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. Refer to Figure III-3, Conceptual Site Plan. The Project's on-site circulation improvements would include an interior east-west roadway linking Coffee Road (at the existing signalized intersection) to the future El Toro Viejo Road, thereby creating a backbone for on-site circulation as well as the “main street” focus for the Project. Interior roadways within the Project area west of Coffee Road also would be provided to ensure the safe and adequate movement of people and vehicles on-site. Internal roadways would be constructed to the standards of the Public Works Department and would conform to the requirements of the City. Access to the proposed uses east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF Railway would be provided by an extension of the two existing access ways off of Coffee Road. The access ways would be improved to accommodate the proposed uses. Access to the proposed uses south of the BNSF Railway and east of Coffee Road would be provided via one access point from Coffee Road. This access point would be at the existing signalized intersection providing a continuation of the main street across Coffee Road into the site on the east side of Coffee Road. Final configuration of the Project's transportation and circulation system would be reviewed by the Bakersfield Fire Department to ensure that the Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access and turning movements and to ensure it adheres with all applicable Fire Department requirements. This approval would be done during the PCD approved phase prior to development. Parking All required parking would be provided in surface parking lots, but may include parking structures if necessary to accommodate required parking on site. Phasing Project construction is proposed to occur in three phases commencing as soon as possible following Project approval and continuing until Project buildout, based on market demand. It is anticipated that Project buildout would occur by 2035. The following three phases are anticipated, however, the phases may be developed in any sequence. Opening day (Phase I) development in 2015 would consist of the development of approximately 57 percent (800,000 square feet) of the retail uses, including theater uses, and approximately 33 percent (200,000 square feet) of the proposed office uses on approximately 83 acres west of Coffee Road. Development of Phase II by 2035 would include completion of the Project’s retail City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-24 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 component (another 600,000 square feet for a total of 1,400,000 square feet) and approximately 67 percent (400,000 square feet) of the proposed office uses on a total of approximately 99 acres (16 additional acres) west of Coffee Road and approximately 49 acres east of Coffee Road. Development of Phase III, also by 2035, would include completion of the Project’s office component (another 200,000 square feet for a total of 600,000 square feet) and all of the proposed residential uses (425 dwelling units) on a total of approximately 164 acres (65 additional acres) west of Coffee Road and a total of approximately 71 acres (22 additional acres) east of Coffee Road. All of the existing on-site uses except for the active oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission towers would be demolished as part of the Project. The active wells would continue in operation consistent with City standards. Project Design Features The following is a summary of all design features proposed for the Project and discussed in Section IV, Environmental Impacts, of this Draft EIR. In addition to the proposed Project design features described below, the proposed Project also would be developed in conformance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, Bakersfield Municipal Code, California Building Code, State Energy Conservation Standards, Bakersfield Subdivision design standards, as well as, all other applicable Federal, state and local laws and policies. These design features will be reviewed and approved during the PCD public hearing by the Planning Commission prior to development. Land Use • Provide a network of bike trails and lanes, as well as bike racks, designed to link with existing and future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. • Within the utility corridor, provide landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, roads, parking, and other compatible uses. • Limit building heights within the commercial areas. No building except for architectural features would exceed a height of 90 feet (approximately six stories). • Use massing, architectural design, landscaping, appropriate buffers/setbacks and height envelopes to ensure compatibility with existing land uses subject to the Bakersfield Municipal Code, design review requirements and further site plan approvals. • Provide for a comprehensive sign plan as described below. • Incorporate architectural design features through articulation, differentiating upper floors from ground floors, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-25 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas, parks and walkways), and providing views into the interiors of buildings and stores. Aesthetics • Landscaping would represent a minimum of ten percent of the proposed Project area. A landscape plan would be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and would include the approximate size and location of all proposed plant materials, the scientific and common names of such plant materials, the proposed irrigation plan and estimated planting schedule. Additional landscaping guidelines established for the proposed Project include: o Graded areas not utilized for buildings, driveways, parking areas, recreational facilities, or walks would be hydroseeded with landscaping. o Views toward surface parking lots would be screened from adjacent major public streets, plazas and pedestrian walkways by the use of berms, landscaping and/or walls or other architectural devices. o Street trees appropriate to the location and approved by the Department of Public Works would be planted at a minimum of one for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage and would be in a minimum 15-gallon container and 8 feet in height at the time of planting. o Landscape and planted areas would be evenly distributed throughout surface parking areas and would be provided at maximum intervals of 50 feet with a tree ratio of one tree for each six parking spaces. o Include rest areas, landscape buffers, courts, or canopies accented with street furnishings and pedestrian-scaled lighting throughout the Project. o Landscaping within the new development would soften and buffer the edge of the property from the adjacent uses, as well as public rights-of-way. o Choice and placement of landscape and hardscape materials would provide a welcoming demeanor to the village center and reduce the visual impacts from the developed site to the neighboring areas. o Visual security would be maintained around buildings and between adjacent uses by optimizing development configuration. o All landscaped areas would have a complete water-conserving irrigation system and would incorporate native vegetation and drought tolerant plants. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-26 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 • The proposed Project would include a comprehensive sign plan, submitted as a separate Planning Application for approval by the Planning Commission, developed to regulate sign areas, heights, lighting, color, and materials, following carefully designed principles and design guidelines formulated to provide an integrated architectural style and theme for the commercial centers. Proposed signage would include, but not be limited to, Project monument signs at main entrances to commercial and residential areas. Signage would be coordinated and designed depending on the type of signage (i.e., Project identification, tenant identification, wayfinding, etc.) and the area of the Project in which the signage is located (i.e., commercial, office or residential), as well as the location of the signage within the Project site (i.e., street edge, point of entry, interior, etc.). • The proposed comprehensive sign plan would include a comprehensive lighting program to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. The lighting program would incorporate the recommendations of the lightning study, provided in Appendix E, Artificial Lighting Analysis, of this Draft EIR, including: o All lights would be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there would be no light emitted above the horizontal and not much light (generally <4 percent) at angles greater than 75 degrees above the vertical. o Streetlights would be flat-lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level position and rated as “Dark-Sky Friendly” by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy efficient sodium lamps would be used, mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. o Exterior lighting originating on the proposed Project site would be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines. o Advertising signs would be illuminated from above and would be off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise or until a given business is closed for the day, whichever is later. Hydrology and Water Quality Surface Hydrology • The proposed Project site is divided into six drainage areas. Four detention/retention basins with two retention approaches would be constructed to accommodate surface water runoff from these areas (refer to Figure IV.E-1, Regional Geology, in Section IV.E, Geology/Soils, of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-27 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 this Draft EIR). Permanent or temporary detention/retention areas would be constructed as their corresponding drainage area is developed. One approach includes two standard detention/retention areas per the specifications set forth in the City of Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual (Basins 1 and 2). The other approach is two underground retention and percolation areas consisting of half cylinders surrounded by gravel. Either system allows water to percolate into the ground while allowing use of the surface for parking or open space. The City has approved one pilot project that includes underground detention facilities in various parts of the City. It is City policy to not approve any facility of this type until such a time that it has been determined that these facilities meet the requirements of the City. Until that time, standard procedures would be required. Because these facilities would not be constructed for some time, it is anticipated that these facilities would be allowable by the City at the time that they are proposed for construction. However, in the event that the City does not allow underground retention facilities when these facilities would be constructed, the proposed Project would seek other methods to address drainage to the satisfaction of the City. The proposed Project would incorporate the volume of the two existing drainage areas as discussed below. o Basin 1 would provide 3.0 acre-feet of storage capacity in a traditional open retention area. The storm runoff from Area A (approximately 22 acres zoned C2), located east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF railroad would be conveyed by a storm drain system to Basin 1 in the southeast corner of the site. o Basin 2 would provide 17.1 acre-feet of storage capacity in a traditional open detention/retention area. The storm runoff from Area B (approximately 49 acres acres zoned C2), Area C (approximately 56 acres zoned CC), and approximately 75 percent of the volume from the existing detention/retention area located west of Coffee Road and north of Brimhall Road (three acre-feet) would be conveyed to Basin 2. The volume from the existing basin area would be captured by intercepting the storm drain at the intersection of Coffee Road and the new proposed east-west Project street. Area B would be conveyed via the same underground pipes from Coffee Road and the new proposed eastwest Project street to Basin 2. Area C would be conveyed by a storm drain system to Basin 2. o Retention Area 3 would provide 15.0 acre-feet of storage capacity in underground structures, which retain the drainage until it percolates into the ground while allowing the surface above to be utilized for parking or open space. The storm runoff from Area D (approximately 83 acres zoned CC) and Area E (approximately 23 acres zoned R3), and Area F (approximately 19 acres zoned R1) would be conveyed to Retention Area 3, located at the northeast corner of Brimhall Road and Harvest Creek Road, via a storm drain system. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-28 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 o Retention Area 4 would provide 13.2 acre-feet of storage capacity in underground structures similar to Retention Area 3. The storm runoff from the existing retention basin located on the north side of Brimhall Road and the remaining 25 percent of the drainage from the existing retention basin west of Coffee Road and north of Brimhall Road would be conveyed to Retention Area 4 via a storm drain system. Water Quality • Water quality facilities and design features would be integrated into the proposed Project’s design by filtering drainage along landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings. • Pavers and other pervious pavements would be implemented as applicable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials • All facilities associated with remediation, including groundwater and extraction wells, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQB following completion of remediation activities. Noise • The location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with large retail development portions of the proposed Project site would be prohibited to be within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed solely with residential uses. In addition, other than trash removal by the City or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations at the Project site would not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed solely with residential uses unless evidence is submitted to the City Planning Department by the developer that sound mitigation would be implemented to reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than three dBA above the measured background noise noise level at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to the affected residential uses. • Loading docks at the proposed Project site would be required to include separate walls for noise attenuation, if they are adjacent to residential areas, and these walls would be required to be screened with landscaping so that they are not visible from residential areas or public City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-29 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 streets. Furthermore, as part of the Project’s design features, trash pickup areas within the proposed Project site are not allowed to be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed to match the design of the center. • The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design any necessary treatments for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses during each of the three phases of development (i.e., opening day (Phase I) in 2015, Phase II in 2035, and Project buildout (Phase III) in 2035) to ensure that nearby off-site residences would not be exposed to operational noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, methods such as: o Use of enclosures or localized barriers around equipment noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, exhaust fans, trash pickup areas, etc.); and o Placement of barriers between the off-site and on-site residences and commercial and office uses. Public Services Police Protection • The Project applicant would employ “standard” security features precautions including secured construction sites and on-site security, to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement at the proposed Project construction site. • The proposed Project would use strategic design features such as security cameras, security officers, lights, fencing, gates, and sound building design to deter and prevent criminal activity. Parks/Recreation • The proposed Project includes landscaped areas throughout the site that would represent a minimum of approximately ten percent of the Project area. • The proposed Project includes four acres of open space within the residential portion of the proposed Project site that includes a 2.6-acre park and 1.4 acres of open space along the southern Project boundary. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-30 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 • The proposed Project includes approximately two acres of trails and paseos throughout the proposed Project site. Utilities and Service Systems Water • To the extent feasible, the proposed Project would implement the following water conservation practices: o Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment including low-flush toilets and urinals; o Efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems that use moisture sensors; o Self-closing valves for faucets and drinking fountains for commercial applications; o Low water use/drought tolerant landscaping where appropriate; o Water efficient ice machines, dishwashers, and clothes washers and any other washing appliances; o Cooling towers recirculating system; o Public information/awareness on water conservation via bathroom stickers, table tents, etc.; o Water efficient technologies and practices in any new facilities; and o Limit irrigation to low-heat hours (e.g., morning and/or evening hours) to reduce water losses from evaporation to the extent feasible. Solid Waste • During construction, the Contractor would separate all Project construction debris and construction-related debris into recyclable and non-recyclable items. All recyclable debris would be transported to appropriate recycling facilities so as to reduce waste disposed of at County landfills. Additionally, recyclable materials and materials consistent with the wastereducing goals of the City of Bakersfield would be used in all aspects of construction, when possible. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-31 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Electricity • The Project Applicant would coordinate with PG&E staff early in the planning stages to ensure that adequate service and facilities are incorporated into the proposed Project. Natural Gas • The proposed Project would provide an internal distribution system within proposed Project streets that would include piping and service laterals. • Each of the proposed Project's buildings would comply with the State Energy Conservation Standards for New Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code), to reduce energy consumption levels for new buildings, consistent with the requirements of state law. D. PROJECT PHASING & CONSTRUCTION The proposed Project involves the development of 1,330,000 square feet of retail space, a 70,000 square foot cinema, 600,000 square feet of commercial/office space, and 425 residential units. The Project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Prior to any grading or construction taking place in the northwest portion of the Project site, the two existing on-site buildings would be demolished. Phase I construction would include 730,000 square feet of retail uses; a 70,000 square-foot cinema; and 200,000 square feet of office uses. Phase I construction is forecasted to be completed by the end of December 2012. During Phase I construction, the greatest construction activity would occur for the nine months between January 2012 and September 2012. Grading in support of Phase II construction is scheduled to begin in January 2024 and last through March 2024. Phase II building construction is scheduled to take place between April 2024 and May 2035. Phase II construction is anticipated to involve the construction of 600,000 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of commercial/office space. Phase III grading is scheduled to start January 2034 and continue through March 2034. The third phase of building construction is scheduled to begin April 2034 and continue through September 2035 with the construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of office space and 425 residential units. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-32 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 E. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals The Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan encourages urban activity with a diverse mix of uses as well as the development of public benefits and livable/walkable communities. The goals and objectives of the Project’s design plan are intended to create an environment consistent with the General Plan and include the following: • To create an inviting lifestyle retail center catering to the needs of the surrounding areas. • To establish prominent pedestrian linkages and greenways within a commercial center consisting of a mix of uses, as allowed by the C-2/PCD and C-C/PCD zones, which will adjoin and buffer residential areas. • To promote a walkable environment, which will encourage visitors and residents to walk throughout the commercial center. • To incorporate pedestrian scale design components into the landscaped linkages along with grassy swales for improving water quality, landscaped areas for the detention and retention of drainage flows to improve water quality, greenscape and hardscape to soften the surrounding built environment, and bikeways which are separate and distinct from the walking paths. • To provide a design theme, which integrates the diversity of proposed uses and caters to the modern lifestyle pursuits of the surrounding community. • To provide for efficient clustering of new commercial development consistent with infill policies. Objectives Provided below is a list of objectives for the Project that reflect the objectives of the Applicant, as well as support the policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. As such, the objectives of the proposed Project are to: • Create a flexible, market-driven development that may respond to existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; • Create a "high-quality" development that complements existing development trends in the area; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-33 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 • Locate commercial development in proximity to existing and/or planned [northwest Bakersfield] residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; • Locate commercial uses along transportation corridors; • Develop commercial centers with a diverse range of commercial uses to serve various users (e.g., residents, workers, tourists, visitors); • Create a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment; • Provide a sustainable, infill development by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; • Develop a mix of commercial and residential uses to improve jobs-housing balance; • Locate residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes; • Transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities; • Establish a community with mixed uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; • Promote an environmentally sensitive balance of uses; • Create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; • Develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing parks and trails and accommodate the recreational needs of residents; and • Provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. F. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the Project would require certain approvals, entitlements, and permits from the City of Bakersfield and other public agencies. Discretionary actions of approval required for the Project may include, but not be limited to, the following: • General Plan Amendments; • Zone Change approvals; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-34 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 • Development Agreement; • Subdivision approvals; • Site Plan Review PCD and PUD Development Plan approvals; • Community Facilities and/or Assessment District approvals; • Public Utilities Commission (PUC) review/approvals regarding railroad crossings and potential electrical substation; • Encroachment Permits (BNSF Railway, City of Bakersfield, and others as applicable); • Grading and Building Permits; • Comprehensive Sign Plan; and • Other approvals as may be determined necessary to implement the Project as described in this Draft EIR. G. RELATED PROJECTS & BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as well as the project’s “cumulative impacts.” CEQA defines a cumulative impact as an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). As stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), the cumulative impacts discussion in an EIR need not discuss impacts that do not result in part from the Project evaluated in the EIR. Cumulative impacts may be analyzed by considering a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)). All projects that are proposed (i.e., with pending applications), recently approved, under construction, or reasonably foreseeable that could produce a cumulative impact on the local environment when considered in conjunction with the proposed Project are included in this EIR. These projects can include, if necessary, projects outside of the control of the lead agency. If a concise list of related projects is not available, cumulative impacts may be analyzed using the regional or area-wide growth projections contained in an adopted or certified general plan or related planning document. In this Draft EIR, cumulative impact analyses are provided for each environmental issue discussed in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, and can be found in each respective subsection (e.g., Air Quality, Transportation/Traffic, etc.). Table III-3, Related Projects List, provides the related projects that were considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The related project list was compiled based on City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-35 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 information provided by the City of Bakersfield and consists of all known potential projects located within the Project vicinity as of April 16, 2009. A number of related projects are no longer proposed and have been withdrawn, however, these projects have been included in the related project list and are defined with an asterisk. Therefore, this Draft EIR provides a conservative, worst-case analysis of cumulative impacts. The locations of the related projects are depicted in Figure III-6, Related Project Location Map, and generally include all projects within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Table III-3 Related Projects List No. Project Quadrant Description Size 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Southwest Commercial 430,175 sf 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Southwest Single Family 1,206 du 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Southwest Single Family 1,128 du 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Southwest Office 65,340 sf 5* Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Southwest Single Family 1,300 du 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Northeast Commercial 65,000 sf Single Family 1,280 du Multi-Family 120 du 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Southwest Single Family 1,010 du Multi Family 2,562 du Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 8 Lowry (06-0377) Southeast Single Family 318 du 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Southwest Multi-Family 230 du Light Industrial 41 ac 10* Deberti (06-0494) Northeast Single Family 300 du 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Southwest Playing Fields 163 ac Retail 402,930 sf 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Southwest Single Family 330 du 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Southwest Residential 164 du Retail 95,000 sf 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Southwest Residential 200 du 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Southwest Residential 350 du 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Northeast Single Family 4,412 du Multi-Family 326 du Retail 501,000 sf 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Northwest Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Southeast Retail 1,000,000 sf Hotel 300 rooms 19 A & E Union (06-1681) Northeast Open Space 180 ac 20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Northwest Multi-Family 11 du 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Northwest Industrial 625 ac 22 Crossroads (07-2211) Southwest Retail 235,992 sf 23 Shops at River Walk Northwest Retail 465,000 sf 24 Intertex A/B Properties Southwest Retail 626,500 sf City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-36 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table III-3 Related Projects List No. Project Quadrant Description Size 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Southwest Retail 700,000 sf 26 McAlister Ranch Southwest Retail 1,500,000 sf Single Family 9,000 du 27 Rosedale Ranch Northwest Retail 1,400,000 sf Single Family 4,871 du Multi Family 5,541 du Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 28 Old River Ranch Southwest Retail 686,000 sf Office 877,740 sf Single Family 5,979 du Multi-Family 7,037 du 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Northwest Commercial 38,389 sf 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Northwest Commercial 205,000 sf 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Southwest Multi Family 20 du 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Northwest Multi Family 68 du Commercial 10 ac 33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Northwest Multi Family 328 du 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Northwest Multi Family 270 du 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Northwest Multi Family 125 du Commercial 160,000 sf 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Northwest Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Southeast Multi Family 2 du 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Northwest Multi Family 32 du Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Northwest Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Northeast Industrial 53 ac 41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Northeast Residential 20 ac 42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Southwest Residential 465 du 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Southwest Residential 344 du 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Southwest Residential 172 du 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Southwest Commercial 150,000 sf 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Northeast Residential 450 du 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Southwest Industrial 10,000 sf 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Southeast Residential 75 du Commercial 5 ac 49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Southwest Residential 6 ac 50 Guimarra (08-1746) 1746) Southeast Residential 1,800 du Commercial 261,360 sf 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Northeast Residential 390 du Open Space 20 ac 52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Southwest Residential 352 du 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Northwest Industrial 8 ac 54 Rosedale Target Northwest Retail 228,966 sf City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-37 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 Table III-3 Related Projects List No. Project Quadrant Description Size 55 Rosedale Crossings Northwest Retail 175,000 sf 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Southwest Retail 137,609 sf 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Southeast Retail 140,000 sf 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Southeast Commercial 249,905 sf 59 Rosedale Square Northwest Commercial 25,000 sf 60 Destination at Old Farm Northwest Commercial 56,400 sf 61 99 Houghton LLC Southwest Mixed-Use 306 ac Commercial 307,098 sf 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Southwest Retail 200,000 sf 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Northeast Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 64 Denela/DeWalt Northeast Retail 228,690 sf 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Northwest Retail 43,560 sf Residential 203 du 66 River Oaks Plaza Southwest Retail 130,000 sf 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Northeast Retail 89,000 sf 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Northeast Retail 177,000 sf Office 52,000 sf 69 Allen Fakler Northeast Commercial 107,353 sf 70 Panama Grove Southwest Commercial 550,000 sf 71 SWC Taft & Stine Southwest Commercial 150,000 sf 72 Porter & Associates Northwest Commercial 65,340 sf 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Southeast Commercial 117,612 sf 74 Salvadore Chipres Southeast Commercial 71,874 sf 75 Allen Road Land Development Northwest Residential 45 du 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Northwest Residential 640 du 77 Beech Street Northwest Residential 436 du 78 Black Hawk Land Company Northwest Residential 305 du 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Southwest Residential 16 du 80 Jon Moule Southwest Residential 8 du 81 Kern Community College District Northwest Residential 2,166 du 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Northwest Residential 30 du 83 Northwest Land & Development Northwest Residential 55 du 84 Reina Ranch Northwest Residential 240 du 85 Stonefield Development Southwest Residential 32 du Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres *Represents applications that have been withdrawn. Source: City of Bakersfield, April 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-38 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. 99 FWY 5 E8H YW W58 HWY 5 NORTH 5SOUTH FWY 718F WY 99FWY 71 8 HWY ENOS LN ROS DE ALE H WY S ENOS LN EBAR OM UNTAINB DVL EB AE RUOM ATNIN LB VD 65 HWY 24TH TS TAFT H WY WEEDPATCH HWY GOLDENSTATE AVE MAIN ST GOLDEN STATE HWY MORNING DR WEEDPATCH HWY TA TFHYW ALFRED HARRELL HWY SEVENTH STANDARD RD PANA AM LN ASHE RD WIBLE RD STINERD WHI ET LN SUNION AVE STOCKDALE H YW IMNGAVE S EDISONRD SFAIRFAX RD GOSFORD RD OLDRIVER RD AP N AMA RD EDISON HWY HOUGH OT N RD LO IVEDR E PAN AMA LN UM L REL R D HAGEAM NRD NILES ST SH ST DIG OIRGOI RD COFFEE RD NORD AVE COTTONWOOD RD CALLOWAY DR BUENA SIV TA LB VD BU ENAVISTARD FAIRFAXRD HEATH RD RB E U DN AGE LN RK ATZMEYERRD JAMES RD BRECK NERIDGERD B IR HM ALLRD RENFRORD ALLEN RD HEROM AS RD AIRPORT DR SANTA FEWAY ROUNDMOUNTAIN RD S VINELAND RD SUN ES T VLB D MARTIN AVE COMANCHE DR RANCHERIA RD MCCUCTHEN RD FRUITVALE AVE PALA ONID RD HS FA TERRD CA ILOFRNIA VA E MOUN NIATWEIV RD OAK ST C LO MU UB S TS MOUNT VERNON AVE ADOBE RD HOSKNI G VA E NCHESTERAVE S ALLEN RD S CHESTER AVE SEVENTHSAT NDARDRD UNION AVE CHINAGR DA E LOOP JEWETTAAVE SHAFTER AVE S COMANCHE DR E C ALIFORN AI A EV RBADNU GEL N NEW STINE RD EDISONRD NAP OR AMADR RIVERBLVD SUPERIOR RD TAFTHYW S GRANITERD WO NS RD C SA A L MO ADR MORNING DR MANOR ST LGNE ERD MASTERSONST OSWELL ST S MOUNT VERNONAVE GREELEY RD CHESTERAVE R DE BANKRD US LL IVANR D RETFAHS E DR TEJON HWY VINELAND RD MOHAWKST WIHC G AN AR ED LOOP DRIVER RD ETCHRATDR S OSWELLST KNUDSENDR EBARMOUNTAIN LB VD MOHAWK ST MORNING DR ADOBE RD CHESTER AVE SHAFTER DR MOHAWK ST IRB HM ALL RD HS FAET RRD OAK ST SH ST SUPERIOR RD MOHAWK ST ES VEN HTSTANDARDRD S ALLENRD RENFRO RD SNOW RD S VINELAND RD H SO KING AVE MANOR ST SALLEN RD CHINA GRADE LOOP OSWELL ST SANTAFE WAY GREELEY RD Feet 0 6,000 12,000 Source: The City of Bakersfield, Planning Division of the Development Services Department. Figure III-6 Related Projects Map 5 19 22 11 12 3 8 6 7 23 9 21 4 13 1 2 16 15 18 17 20 10 66 14 24 25 26 27 28 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 76 78 79 80 81 82 8384 85 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project III. Project Description and Environmental Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report Page III-40 GPA/ZC # 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A. LAND USE PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Conditions Development of the proposed Project site is currently guided by several adopted land use plans and policies that provide guidance as to how development could occur on the proposed Project site, as well as, within the broader geographic context as discussed further below. Regional Plans The Kern Council of Governments (COG) is an association of city and county governments created to address regional transportation and planning issues. Its member agencies include the County of Kern and 11 incorporated cities within Kern County, including the City of Bakersfield. Legislation regarding traffic, air pollution, and other issues affecting the Metropolitan Bakersfield area led the State to require the Kern COG to prepare comprehensive regional plans to address these concerns, intended to work in concert to help reduce traffic congestion and pollution levels throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Recent State legislation implemented the Strategic Growth Plan, a 20-year plan to identify investments needed to support the well-being of California’s future economy. Through a legislative framework (Executive Order S-5-05, June 24, 2005), the Governor established the San Joaquin Valley Partnership (SJVP). In support of the Governor’s legislative action, the California Regional Blueprint Planning Program was created. The Blueprint Grant Program was specifically issued to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in cooperation with other COGs throughout the state. The Kern Regional Blueprint Project is a two-year effort envisioned to support long range regional planning through comprehensive development of regional consensus. The Kern Regional Blueprint Project’s goal, in concert with the other SJVP COGs, is to compare various future land use patterns against the potential impacts those patterns have on the region’s transportation systems, housing supply, jobs-housing proximity and balance, and environmental and natural resources. The California Regional Blueprint Planning Program is a voluntary, discretionary, and competitive grant program established to assist MPOs in developing a regional growth strategy. The Blueprint grant funding is to be used to address future housing, economic, environmental and mobility challenges, including congestion and deteriorating air quality. Regional environmental and policy plans applicable to the proposed Project include the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), Bikeways Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), County Solid Waste Management Plan, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 and the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The primary features of these plans are outlined below. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) was approved in August 1994. The MBHCP is a comprehensive plan to mitigate impacts on sensitive species arising from development with the purpose of creating habitat preserves. The MBHCP includes implementing agreements and ordinances, identifying specific methods for collecting funds for the acquisition and perpetual management of habitat land. The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth in the MBGP. The MBHCP is intended to meet the requirements of both state and federal endangered endangered species acts and environmental regulations set forth in NEPA and CEQA. The boundaries of the MBHCP study area match the boundaries of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), consisting of 408 square miles of area. Development projects within Metropolitan Bakersfield pay mitigation fees, which are used to buy habitat lands. The proposed Project site is within the boundaries of the MBHCP. A detailed discussion of the MBHCP is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.I, Biological Resources. The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in year 2014. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2014 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2014 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees is not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2014 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Fish and Game Department. Air Quality Attainment Plan The Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), adopted February 2006, has been prepared for the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) Air Basin and calls for the overall reduction in air quality emissions in the Valley in order to comply with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Stationary and mobile source emission control recommendations and regulations have been developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) to implement the AQAP. A detailed discussion of the AQAP is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.K, Air Quality. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan This plan includes the location and extent of bikeways within the greater Bakersfield Metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan, included in the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, was prepared by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County (adopted August, 2002). Additionally, the City is currently preparing a Parks and Trails Master Plan. Emergency Response Plan and Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan The Emergency Response Plan, prepared by the City of Bakersfield, provides measures related to emergency preparedness in response to the City’s directive to identify and implement emergency plans consistent with the California Earthquake Response Plan, the Kern County Evacuation Plan, and the City of Bakersfield Disaster Plan. The Bakersfield Fire Department would establish evacuation routes if determined necessary in coordination with the Police Department and other responsible agencies, based upon the scope and context of the event. The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted the Kern County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) as a component of the MBGP Safety Element on March 13, 2007.1 The MHMP is a multi-jurisdictional plan whose purpose is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. This plan documents the Kern County hazard mitigation planning process, identifies natural hazards and risks within the County, and identifies the County’s hazard mitigation strategy to make Kern County less vulnerable and more disaster resistant and sustainable. The MHMP addresses natural hazards only (e.g., earthquakes, wildfires, floods, severe weather and winds, and drought). The MHMP establishes the “master” goal to develop sustainable communities and to preserve life, protect property, the environment, and the economy from natural hazards. Additional goals are also defined to reinforce the master goal, i.e., reducing hazard impacts to the citizens of the county, existing and future development and the natural environment, and, existing and future critical facilities and infrastructure. These goals would be implemented through objectives and strategies that promote public readiness and awareness, identification of critical facilities, improving disaster response/recovery capabilities, and access to transportation and traffic corridors during emergencies, and protecting the region’s infrastructure, communication and technology networks. 1 The MHMP was approved on March 6, 2006, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2007-078 on March 13, 2007, incorporating the “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP)” as a component of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Safety Element. Source: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/mbgptoc.pdf. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for Kern County, adopted in August 2004, identifies future transportation improvements needed to serve the projected transportation needs of the County. The RTP details the existing transportation systems, sets goals, policies, and projects, and identifies funding mechanisms for these projects. Transportation projects identified in the RTP include highway, street, and roadway projects, mass transportation, railroad, and other programs and projects related to the transportation needs of the County. A detailed discussion of the RTP is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic. Solid Waste Management Plan The Solid Waste Management Plan is a comprehensive guide for all solid waste management activities in the County. The Plan identifies the existing solid waste generation generation and disposal facilities in Kern County, estimates future solid waste disposal demand, and identifies programs to meet this future need. Kern County governance completed the required five-year review of its Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) on July 18, 2006, as approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, noting that a revision to the CIWMP was not necessary at that time. Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan focuses on the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities, the transport of hazardous waste in the County, protection of water resources from hazardous waste contamination, and public education concerning the use and disposal of hazardous waste. City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) was adopted in December 2002. The MBGP is a joint planning document adopted by both the County of Kern and and the City to provide for a cohesive planning effort for the entire metropolitan Bakersfield area. This plan applies to land within the City boundaries as well as portions of unincorporated Kern County. The City and County performed a comprehensive update of the General Plan in 2001, including revisions and implementation measures that reflect current issues and trends and the metropolitan area’s goal for future conservation and development over the next 20 years. The MBGP is a policy document designed to give long-range guidance for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 decision-making affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. It represents the official statement of the community’s physical development as well as its economic, social, and environmental goals. The MBGP Land Use Map depicts the existing land use designations, adopted by the City of Bakersfield in December 2002. The MBGP separates the City into four quadrants, with State Route 99 (SR-99) serving as the north-south axis and Stockdale Highway (west of SR99) and SR58 (east of SR99) serving as the east-west axis. These four quadrants are further subdivided into developed urban and rural-undeveloped areas. The proposed Project site is located in the Urban Northwest Planning Area of Bakersfield. The MBGP defines the Urban Northwest as follows: Urban Northwest. The urban northwest is generally bounded by Snow and Hageman Roads on the north, Renfro Road on the west, the Kern River on the south, and Highway 99 on the east. This area includes the communities of Rosedale and Greenacres, and the Fruitvale Oil Field. The Rosedale community consists of large-lot rural residences, local serving commercial, and scattered oil refineries. The Greenacres community also consists of many large-lot rural residences. Pages II-2 through II-5 of the MBGP provide an overview of the basic principles for new urban areas and development in peripheral areas. The development concepts are referred to as mixed-use activity centers. The following is an excerpt from Pages II-2 through II-5 of the MBGP. “Overview of the General Plan Basic Principles for New Urban Areas The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Map is depicted in Figure II-1, located in the back of this document. The plan map provides a graphic depiction of the general plan’s development policies, and indicates that land use designations for which pertinent policies and standards have been established. Two basic principles govern the plan: the focusing of new development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities and the siting of development to take advantage of the environmental setting. These principles are defined as the “centers” and “resource” concepts respectively. Figure II-2 conceptually illustrates these land use principles. The “centers” concept provide for a land use pattern consisting of several concentrated mixeduse commercial and high density residential centers surrounded by medium density residential uses. Centers may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character. Single-family residential uses are located between these mixed-use commercial/residential centers primarily. This concept encourages people to live and work in the same area, and thus serves to minimize sprawl and reduce traffic, travel time, infrastructure City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 costs, and air pollution. In addition to promoting the formation of several large concentrated mixed-use centers, the plan attempts to consolidate smaller, neighborhood-serving commercial development by prescribing minimum distances between commercial parcels and by discouraging strip commercial development. The “resources” concept emphasizes the siting of development to reflect the planning area’s natural and visual resources; its river, canals, and foothills. The “resources” concept uses as a point of departure, the 1984 Kern River Plan Element (as amended), which takes advantage of the recreational potential of the river while respecting the river’s sensitive natural habitats and aesthetic resources. It is proposed that linkages to unique resources be encouraged. Policies have been included in the plan to promote utilization and sensitivity of natural and and visual resources. Basic Principles for Development of Peripheral Areas New development on the periphery of urban Bakersfield will be focused in ten new mixed-use activity centers located in the southwest, northwest and northeast . . . . The center in the northwest will contain retail commercial, light industrial, moderate and high density residential, and will be surrounded by low and estate residential densities. The plan encourages that each center: (a) focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body; (b) link land uses to the Kern River where possible; and (c) exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity. As a general rule, the sphere of influence boundaries were utilized to help define the boundaries of planned urban growth.” The MBGP was utilized throughout this Draft EIR as the fundamental planning document governing development on the proposed Project site. Background information and policy information from the MBGP is cited in several sections of this Draft EIR. A planned update to the MBGP is currently in progress and joint policies between the City and County, with public consensus, will be established during this process. The update is expected to take two years or longer. The previous update was completed in 2002. As part of the MBGP update and Kern Regional Blueprint process in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, issues regarding current growth and development patterns relative to air quality, transportation networks, and infrastructure will be analyzed. Environmental documentation is undergoing preparation by the lead agencies. General Plan Elements The MBGP contains goals and policies identified in the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities and Parks. One City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 additional element – the Kern River Plan Element – help to define goals and policies for issues unique to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities and Parks Elements are discussed briefly below with further discussion provided in the respective topical section of this Draft EIR (e.g., Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic ; Section IV.L, Noise; Section IV.N, Public Services). The additional Element relates to specific geographic areas of the City that are not directly applicable to the proposed Project; therefore, no additional discussion is warranted within the scope of this analysis. The Land Use Element is discussed in greater detail below. Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the MBGP includes specific goals and policies that address issues and implement the opportunities associated with transportation, circulation systems, and future development within the City. The street system is considered by the City to be the most visible focus of planning and related policy analysis, with over ninety percent of all travel in the City conducted by automobiles and trucks although policies recognize all modes of travel. The goals will be achieved through implementation of policies which set more specific direction and guide land use actions. Further discussion regarding circulation and transportation is provided in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR. Housing Element An amendment/update to the City of Bakersfield Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on January 29, 2003, (certified February 2003) and is incorporated by reference as part of the MBGP. The Housing Element addresses the goals, policies, and programs for addressing housing need and demand within the City of Bakersfield. Further discussion of housing issues is provided in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR. The City is currently completing a Housing Element Update, which was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the summer of 2008. The City is awaiting approval from HCD. Conservation Element The Conservation Element presents the goals and policies for biological, water, mineral, agricultural land, and soils resources and air quality in the planning area. Goals addressed in the Element applicable to the proposed Project include conserving and enhancing Bakersfield's resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources; promoting air quality that is compatible with health, well being, and enjoyment of life by controlling point sources and minimizing vehicular trips to reduce air pollutants; and, maintaining effective cooperative planning City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 programs for water resource conservation and utilization in the planning area by involving all responsible water agencies in the planning process. Further discussion regarding these resources is provided in Section IV.I, Biological Resources, Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section IV.H, Mineral Resources, and Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. Open Space The Open Space Element primarily addresses many of the area's major open space amenities including the Kern River, bluffs and foothills and their utilization. Goals applicable to the proposed Project include locating site development to minimize the disruption of open space areas, and conserving and enhancing the unique aspects of open space within the planning area. Goals specific to geographic areas are not directly applicable to the proposed Project. A general discussion of open space is provided within this section and as it relates to parks and aesthetics (see Section IV.N, Public Services, and IV.D, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR). Noise Element The Noise Element addresses the four major sources of community noise i.e., traffic on state highways and major local streets, railroad operations, airport operations and local industrial activities. Further discussion of noise-related issues is provided in Section IV.L, Noise, of this Draft EIR. Safety Element The Safety Element addresses seismic safety, flooding and public safety, as well as general provisions to preserve life, protect property, the environment, and the economy from natural hazards. Further discussion of safety-related issues is provided in Section IV.E, Geology/Soils, Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section IV.N, Public Services, of this Draft EIR. Public Services and Facilities Element The Public Services and Facilities Element is an optional element of the MBGP in accordance with California Government Code Section 65303. This element addresses general utility services, water distribution, sewers, storm drainage, street lighting and solid waste. Further discussion of relevant issues and analysis is provided in Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Parks Element The Parks Element is an optional element of the MBGP in accordance with California Government Code Section 65303 prepared to address the concerns of providing sufficient park land for residents, and to establish a relationship between park space and the City's entire open space resource, and development. The Parks Element sets policies and minimum standards for the amount and quality of land devoted to parks. Further discussion of relevant issues and analysis is provided in Section IV.N.4, Public Services (Parks/Recreation), of this Draft EIR. Land Use Element Policies and Programs The Land Use Element of the MBGP includes specific goals and policies that address issues and implement the opportunities associated with residential; commercial; recreation, parks and open space; transportation; and major development opportunity sites. The goals will be achieved through implementation of policies which set more specific direction and guide land use actions. Applicable goals and policies for land use are: • Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley. • Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population. • Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. • Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements. • Accommodate new development which capitalizes on the planning areas natural environmental setting, including the Kern River and the foothills. • Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment and accounts for environmental hazards. • Establish a built environment which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. • Target growth companies that meet clean air requirements, and create sustainable employment in jobs paying higher wages. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Enhance existing and establish new centers as the principal focus of development and activity in the planning area, around which other land uses are grouped. Centers should be linked by adequate transportation facilities and may be linked to the Kern River, canals, or other resource amenities. Centers may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character. General Plan Land Use Designations Project Site The MBGP designates the proposed Project site as HI (Heavy Industrial), LI (Light Industrial), GC (General Commercial), LR (Low-Density Residential), OS-P (Parks and Recreational Facilities), and PS (Public and Private School). A summary of the existing land use designations and corresponding zoning is presented in Table IV.A-1, Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning. Surrounding Area Adjacent land use designations include Low-Density Residential to the west and south, High-Density Residential on the south side of Brimhall Road between Mondavi Way and River Ranch Drive, and Heavy and Light Industrial and General Commercial to the east and southeast. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substations located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway, are designated for Public Facilities land uses, which includes utilities. The actual facilities associated with the PG&E power plant are not immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site. The Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J), located to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal, is outside the City boundary, with an applicable County designation for Industrial use. Table IV.A-1 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning Designation Existing Acreage General Plan Land Use Heavy Industrial (HI) 36 Light Industrial (LI) 65 General Commercial (GC) 12 Low-Density Residential (LR) 113 Open Space, Parks and Recreational Facilities (OS-P) 5 Public and Private Schools (PS) 4 Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (LI – 4 ac; OS-P – 16 ac) 20 Project Site Total 255 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-1 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning Designation Existing Acreage Zoning General Manufacturing (M-2) 86 Light Manufacturing (M-1) 15 Regional Commercial (C-2) 12 One-Family Dwelling (R-1) 122 Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (M-1 = 4 ac; OS = 16 ac) 20 Project Site Total 255 Source: Psomas 2007. All acreages identified above are approximate. City of Bakersfield Zoning Title 17 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) provides a description of permitted uses, building heights, yards, and distances between buildings for the various zoning designations within the City. The Zoning Ordinance consists of two primary parts: a map that delineates the boundaries of zoning districts; and text that explains the purpose of the districts, specifies permitted and conditional uses, and establishes development and performance standards. The Zoning Ordinance serves as the planning mechanism to implement the goals and policies of the MBGP, assuring the orderly and beneficial development of areas within the City’s jurisdiction. Project Site The proposed Project site is currently zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing), M-2 (General Manufacturing), C-2 (Regional Commercial), R-1 (One-Family Dwelling), and within the transmission corridor M-1 and OS (Open Space). Within the area of the proposed Project site located west of Coffee Road, the southwest corner is zoned R-1 with the northern portion zoned M-1. A portion of the southeast corner of the proposed Project site is zoned C-2 and the portion of the site adjacent to Coffee Road and north of the southeast corner is zoned M-2. Approximately 16 acres of the transmission corridor is zoned OS, with the remaining 4 acres (approximate) adjacent to the BNSF railroad zoned M-1. The portion of the proposed Project site located east of Coffee Road is zoned entirely M-2. Refer to Figures III-1 and III-2 which identify Existing Land Use and Zoning, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Surrounding Area Adjacent land uses include low-and medium-density residential areas (zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3) to the south and west, a low-rise office development (zoned Commercial Office) to the south, and light and general manufacturing areas (zoned M-1 and M-2), and commercial uses (zoned C-2) to the east and southeast. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substations are located to the north (zoned M-1 and OS). The Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J), located further to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal, is designated with applicable County industrial zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The discussion of impacts assesses the proposed Project’s relationship to pertinent goals and policies of the MBGP and other related policy planning documents. The determination of consistency with applicable land use policies and ordinances is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions pertaining to the proposed Project site. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable general and regional plans that the decision-makers should address. The proposed Project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the plans, and would not preclude the attainment of the primary intent of the land use plan or policy. If the proposed Project is determined to be inconsistent with specific objectives or policies of a land use plan, although largely consistent with the land use goals of that plan and would not preclude the attainment of the primary intent of the land use plan, the proposed Project would be considered consistent. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Initial Study Environmental Checklist form which includes questions relating to land use and relevant planning programs. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as threshold of significance in this section. In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they will result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts that are identified. The criteria, or standards, used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. For the purposes of this proposed Project, impacts related to land use are considered City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 significant if one or more of the following conditions would result from implementation of the proposed Project: (a) physically divide an established community; (b) conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and, (c) conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. The standard regarding the habitat conservation plan is noted here based on the Initial Study analysis and relevance of the adopted MBHCP components to land use issues. The current MBHCP expires in year 2014. The MBCHP is addressed comprehensively within the biological resources analysis of this Draft EIR; implementation of proposed mitigation measures noted in that section would reduce potential Project impacts with regard to the MBHCP to a less than significant level. Please refer to Section IV.I, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, for additional information. • Based on these standards, the effects of the proposed Project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.” If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through application of goals, policies, standards or mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. Project Design Features The following proposed Project Design features have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • Provide a network of bike trails and lanes, as well as bike racks, designed to link with existing and future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. • Within the utility corridor, provide landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, roads, parking, and other compatible uses. • Limit building heights within the commercial areas. No building except for architectural features would exceed a height of 90 feet (approximately six stories). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Use massing, architectural design, landscaping, appropriate buffers/setbacks and height envelopes to ensure compatibility with existing land uses subject to the Bakersfield Municipal Code, design review requirements and further site plan approvals. • Provide for a comprehensive sign plan as described in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, and Section IV.D, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR. • Incorporate architectural design features through articulation, differentiating upper floors from ground floors, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas, parks and walkways), and providing views into the interiors of buildings and stores. Project Impacts The Project proposes the development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses. In addition, the proposed Project would include the development of a total of up to 425 residential units consisting of 80 single-family detached and 345 multi-family townhouse-style units. It is anticipated that the on-site retail uses could include an urban, upscale lifestyle center west of Coffee Road and community serving retail east of Coffee Road. Lifestyle centers cater to the retail needs and lifestyle pursuits of consumers in the market area, and typically have an open-air configuration, landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas and include at least 50,000 square feet of space occupied by upscale national chain specialty stores in addition to local independent specialty stores. Lifestyle centers usually include one or more restaurants, a multi-plex cinema, and reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture, paseos, gardens, and plazas conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. The proposed Project’s mix of uses would be built around a “main street” concept, with retail functions aligned to generate activity traditionally associated with a “main street”, designed to promote a desirable urban scale and character that encourages social, cultural, recreational, and civic interaction. Residential villages west of the lifestyle district would be linked by the main street and to larger retail and offices uses east of Coffee Road. The proposed Project would also provide a network of landscaped bike trails and pedestrian walkways, where feasible, to link adjoining neighborhoods. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Plans and Zoning Consistency with Regional Plans The proposed Project was reviewed and determined to be consistent with the following regional plans: Air Quality Attainment Plan, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, Solid Waste Management Plan, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, as discussed below. The proposed Project’s consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan is further addressed in Draft EIR Section IV.D, Air Quality. The Regional Transportation Plan is addressed in Draft EIR Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic. Specific analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the MBHCP is provided in this Draft EIR Section IV.I, Biological Resources. The proposed Project would be consistent with these area-wide plans through implementation of recognized goals, policies, and/or standards related to each plan as discussed below. Impact Discussion The proposed Project, as discussed in detail below, would be consistent with the policies and goals of applicable land use plans and policy documents. The proposed Project design encourages people to live and work in the same area, thereby minimizing sprawl and reducing traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, and air pollution and would also encourage visitors to go to one location for several uses including shopping, restaurants, walking paseos, entertaining, and other uses. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) The proposed Project site is located within the study focus area boundaries established for the MBHCP. As noted, the MBHCP covers a total 408-square-mile area within the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern jurisdictions; the MBHCP boundary corresponds directly to the boundary shared by the City and County General Plan for the metropolitan area. Urbanization within the plan boundary is subject to the terms and benefits of the MBHCP, although habitat may be purchased within and outside this boundary. A comprehensive approach was determined necessary to balance issues related to species protection and the economic health of the community. The plan provides mitigation for environmental impacts to protected plant and animal species without delaying project processing or construction assuring equitable protection of species habitat while allowing reasonable urban growth. The MBHCP and Implementing Agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat land for purposes of creating preserves. Development projects within the Metropolitan area pay mitigation fees which are used to buy habitat lands. These lands are managed by wildlife agencies or entities they approve. This Draft EIR analyzes potential impacts to biological resources and, consistent City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 with the MBHCP provisions, identifies mitigation measures that would reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1, requiring compliance with the MBHCP would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from proposed Project development to the San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse to a less than significant level. Please refer to Section IV.I, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR for additional information. Air Quality Attainment Plan The AQAP anticipated growth of the population and economy within the Basin, predicting that the employment base in Kern County would increase along with a projected 2.2 percent annual population increase. Relative to this growth, the Kern County General Plan identified specific policies requiring local agency interaction, including the City of Bakersfield, with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the Kern County Air Pollution Control District toward air quality attainment with federal, State, and local standards. The County continues to implement the local government control measures in coordination with the Kern Council of Governments (including the City of Bakersfield) and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to determine project effects and ensure that impacts are mitigated. The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) monitors population growth and its subsequent developmental effects to identify the distribution of population increases and the capabilities of governmental and public agencies to accommodate new development. Therefore, continued growth within the County, such as that taking place throughout the City of Bakersfield (e.g., northwest, peripheral areas) was anticipated in the preparation of the AQAP. For a detailed discussion of the proposed Project’s consistency with with the AQAP and the SJVAPCD standards, please refer to Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan The Bikeway Master Plan was developed and adopted in response to the community’s recognition of energy issues and desire to realize the full potential of recreational opportunities within the region. The plan identifies existing and future proposed bike lanes. Bike lanes currently exist along various streets including part of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The Plan goals identify a need to provide a circulation system which recognizes and responds to the needs of bicycle travel while minimizing cyclist/motorist conflicts. The proposed Project would be consistent with Plan policies to (1) require new subdivisions to provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets in accordance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan, (2) encourage new subdivisions to provide internal bike paths where feasible and where natural features make bike paths desirable, and (3) construct bike lanes in conjunction with all street improvement projects that coincide with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan. The proposed Project would City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 provide a network of bike trails and lanes, as well as bike racks, which are separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, where feasible. The bike trails would be designed to link with existing and future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the proposed Project. Bike lanes would be implemented as determined along the appropriate roadways when full improvements are completed. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan. Regional Transportation Plan Destination 2030, Kern County’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), is a long-range and comprehensive plan that establishes regional transportation and air quality goals, policies and actions regarding congestion management, transit, airports, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, and and freight for all communities within the County. The RTP provides the basic policy and program framework for long term investment in the regional transportation system in a coordinated, cooperative and continuous manner recognizing the various transportation priorities emphasized by each individual community. The proposed Project would implement roadway improvements, including roadway widening, intersection improvements and installation of traffic signals, on a fair-share basis. Of particular importance with regard to the proposed Project is the proposed Westside Parkway which would provide an east-west corridor beginning at Stockdale Highway near Heath Road, connecting to the Truxtun Avenue/Oak Street area near State Route 99. Intermediate access connections would be provided through interchanges at Allen Road, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road and Mohawk Street. Sound walls would be constructed where required to mitigate noise impacts adjacent to residential areas. The Westside Parkway is also planned to be heavily landscaped with many trees. These improvements would be consistent with the policies and planned projects of the RTP. Accordingly, the proposed Project would be consistent with the RTP. Further discussion of plan consistency is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic. Solid Waste Management Plan The proposed Project would be consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. Solid waste disposal for the proposed Project would occur in accordance with Kern County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. Further discussion is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems. Hazardous Waste Management Plan The proposed Project is subject to the policies in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Hazardous waste disposal for the proposed Project would occur in accordance with Kern County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan. With implementation of the required mitigation measures, potential Project impacts City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR). Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the MBGP has been adopted by both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield (December 2002). The Circulation Element identifies goals and policies to be implemented by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern to fully provide for transportation infrastructure and maintain the integrity of the circulation system. The goals of the Circulation Element recognize the need to establish a circulation system that: supports the land use plan shown in the general plan; provides for safe and efficient street movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and goods; minimizes the impact of truck traffic on circulation and on noise sensitive land uses; and, creates a positive image of Bakersfield and contributes to the residents' quality of life. The proposed Project would result in the development of an on-site internal road system to provide access throughout the proposed Project site. The proposed streets would traverse through the property in an alignment patterned to connect with existing streets including Coffee Road and Brimhall Road in the area. The circulation system would evenly distribute traffic flow and provide easy access to the proposed development areas throughout the proposed Project site. The proposed Project also proposes an on-site road system that would be constructed pursuant to applicable City design standards and applicable Circulation Element goals and policies, therefore, the proposed Project, as designed, would be consistent with the Circulation Element. Further discussion is provided in this Draft EIR, Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic. Consistency with City of Bakersfield Plans Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Policies As previously discussed, the development of the proposed Project would be subject to numerous City and County land use plans as well as the development regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project would require amendments to the Land Use Element of the MBGP, with redesignation to reflect the proposed land uses and corresponding changes to the zoning designations, resulting in the reclassification of land previously available for Industrial, Residential and Commercial uses to be newly-designated for Mixed Use Commercial, Commercial, Residential, Open Space, and Recreational uses. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the goals and policies as set forth in the City’s MBGP. The identified goals include accommodating new development, which is compatible with and complements existing land uses and the establishment of a built environment, which City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. New development is intended to be focused at five new mixed use activity centers, including the northwest centers, within which the proposed Project is located. The MBGP encourages the following goals specific to the northwest centers in the City of Bakersfield: (a) focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body; and, b) exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity. While the Applicant has not yet identified the specific types of retail uses that would be located at the proposed Project site, it is anticipated that on-site retail uses would include an urban, upscale lifestyle retail center incorporating open space amenities and pedestrian-oriented uses in its “main street” component. Landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas, restaurants, a multiplex cinema, street furniture and other amenities would create an ambience conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. In addition to the areas within the proposed Project site, an open space element would be provided within the transmission corridor; this area would be used as landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, roads, parking, and other compatible uses. The landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas, and the “main street” features of the proposed Project would be scaled and designed to encourage pedestrian activity. In addition, walking and biking paths, separate from vehicular-based uses, would be located throughout the site. The proposed Project would be consistent with Land Use element in this regard. Based on the analysis presented below, the proposed Project’s land use related impacts would be less than significant. Impact Discussion: Proposed Land Use Designations and Zoning – On Site The proposed Project proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the MBGP, which would reclassify approximately 216 acres from the existing General Commercial, Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Open Space designations to approximately 71 acres of General Commercial, 121 acres of Mixed Use Commercial, and 24 acres of High-Medium Density Residential land uses. The transmission corridor would be reclassified as MUC from the existing designations of OS-P and LI. As the site is not proposed for a neighborhood school facility, the Public and Private Schools (PS) designation is no longer applicable and that acreage is proposed for incorporation into the Mixed Use Commercial designation. The proposed Project proposes zone changes concurrent with the General Plan Amendment to reclassify 216 acres currently zoned C-2, M-1, and M-2 to 71 acres C-2 (Regional Commercial), 121 acres C-C (Commercial Center), and 24 acres R-3 (Multiple-Family Dwelling). The transmission corridor is proposed to be zoned C-C. Under the proposed Project, the westernmost 19 acres of the proposed Project site would be developed in accordance with the existing LR (Low-Density Residential) and R-1 zoning designation. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in the C-C/PCD zone is 3.0:1; and in the C-2/PCD is 1.0:1. Table IV.A-2, Proposed Land Use and Zoning, identifies the proposed land use designations and zoning. Table IV.A-2 Proposed Land Use and Zoning Land Use Designation and Zone Proposed Acreage General Plan Land Use Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) 121 General Commercial (GC) 71 Low-Density Residential (LR) 19 a High-Medium Density Residential (HMR) 24 a Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (MUC) 20 Project Site Total 255 Zoning Regional Commercial (C-2) 71 b Commercial Center (C-C) 121 b One-Family Dwelling (R-1) 19 c Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3) 24 c, d Transmission Corridor and City Drainage Area (C-C) 20 Project Site Total 255 a Open Space requirements of approximately 4 acres for the site would be provided within LR and HMR (proposed) areas. b The proposed Regional Commercial (C-2) zoning and Commercial Center (C-C) zoning will utilize a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) overlay. c Open Space requirements of approximately 4 acres for the site would be provided within R-1 and R-3 zoned (proposed) areas. d The proposed Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3) zoning will utilize a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. Source: Psomas 2007. All acreages identified above are approximate. Land Use Compatibility Additionally, as part of the development, environmental, and design review processes, the City conducts various discretionary entitlement procedures which serve to implement the Land Use Element goals and policies, insuring land use compatibility. These generally involve the following: • Development and building improvements requiring a building permit are subject to review in compliance with City standards, regulations and policy for issuance of a Development Permit. • Discretionary actions of approval required for the proposed Project. The goals, objectives, policies, and standards contained in the Land Use Element encourage architectural and site compatibility in designated areas. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 In addition, the City of Bakersfield maintains an on-going program of code enforcement to ensure continued compliance with applicable codes and conditions of project approvals. The proposed General Plan amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a mix of uses on the periphery of urban areas as described in the Land Use element of the City's MBGP. The proposed land use designations would provide needed flexibility to respond to changing market needs while promoting the overall goals of the MBGP. The following analysis presented in Table IV.A-3, Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, describes the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the City’s MBGP. The analysis concludes that the proposed Project would be consistent with the MBGP Land Use Element goals and policies. Note that those MBGP goals and/or policies not included in the assessment were omitted given negligible or no relationship to the proposed Project or surrounding area including those goals that are either site specific, project specific, use specific, or relate to issues beyond the scope of this analysis (e.g., annexation, stockyards, Bakersfield Airpark). The proposed zone changes would be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment for the site. The proposed Project is subject to conformance with the MBGP policies. Based on these factors, implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone changes would not result in direct significant impacts regarding land use compatibility within the proposed Project area. Refer to Figures III-4 and III-5 in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR for a depiction of proposed land use and zoning designations for the site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency Land Use Goal No. 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Consistent: The proposed commercial and residential uses would respond to the existing and future demand for additional retail, office and housing opportunities within northwestern Bakersfield as well as within Kern County. The growth represented by the proposed Project would contribute to enhancing Bakersfield’s role as a major center within the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Land Use Goal No. 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population. Consistent: The goals and objectives of the proposed Project’s design plan are intended to create an environment consistent with the MBGP by providing for a sustainable, infill development; by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; providing a mix of commercial, and residential uses; locating residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes. Proposed commercial uses would provide support services to proposed residential uses within the Project area as well as existing residential areas across Brimhall Road and throughout northwest Bakersfield and beyond. The proposed Project would transform an underutilized site into an area that would encourage economic growth and create housing opportunities in response to community needs. The proposed Project would provide new entertainment uses and community gathering places that currently do not exist in Northwest Bakersfield. Land Use Goal No. 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. Consistent: Development of the proposed Project would be subject to City requirements. Nearby land uses include residential uses to the west and south, commercial uses to the east, south, southeast and north, and industrial uses to the north and east. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway, and the Big West refinery is located further to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal. The proposed location of the Project’s single-family residential areas along the west boundary of the proposed Project site would create an appropriate interface and transition between new and existing residential land uses to the west. Buildings, plantings, paving for pedestrians and other pedestrian treatments City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency and destinations would build a friendly, walkable urban environment by utilizing combinations of landscape, architecture, paseos, gardens, plazas and street plantings. The proposed commercial uses would be consistent with the existing land uses in the Project vicinity. It should be noted that proposed commercial uses along the Coffee Road corridor are currently permitted by the existing zoning. The proposed Project would also provide open space to meet the recreational and aesthetic needs of Project residents, visitors, and occupants, while providing a buffer between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the south. For example, portions of the transmission corridor would be used as as landscaped open space, greenways, bio-swales, parking, and other compatible uses. The Project design also proposes to install landscaped corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, recreational fields, and perimeter planting areas. As such, the proposed Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing adjacent commercial, industrial and residential uses, in terms of building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting, and other design elements. Land Use Goal No. 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements. Consistent: The proposed Project site is located adjacent to and in the vicinity of several approved residential and commercial development projects, and therefore is the next logical area to be developed within northwest Bakersfield. Project construction would occur in three phases commencing as soon as possible following Project approval and continuing until Project buildout, based on market demand, with anticipated buildout occurring by 2035. The rate of on-site development would be coordinated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure and public improvements. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency Land Use Goal No. 5: Accommodate new development which capitalizes on the planning area’s natural environmental setting, including the Kern River and foothills. Consistent: The proposed Project is located north of the Kern River Parkway but far west of the Sierra Nevada Foothills. The proposed Project would increase recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the Kern River Parkway with bikeways and walkway/trail connections to the centrally-located open space area planned within the on-site transmission corridor as well as to areas external to the proposed Project boundaries. In addition, the proposed Project would be linked to the Kern River trail system. Foothills might be visible in the distance from office buildings and some parts of the lifestyle center, and could be considered a visual amenity albeit limited. Land Use Goal No. 6: Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, and accounts for environmental hazards. Consistent: The proposed Project has been designed to be sensitive to the natural environment and takes into account the potential environmental hazards. Buildings, structures, and vegetation would be constructed and/or installed in a manner that would minimize viewshed impacts while providing an attractive interface with adjoining land uses. Water quality facilities and design features would be integrated into the proposed Project’s design by filtering drainage along landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings. The proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, addressing potential natural hazards, through implementation of mitigation measures, as discussed in detail in Sections IV.E, Geology/Soils, IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, IV.N, Public Services and IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, of this DEIR. Further, as discussed in Section IV.G of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant has agreed to a number of mitigation measures that reduce the potential impact from hazards/hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Land Use Goal No. 7: Establish a built environment which achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. Consistent: Existing residential uses are present to the west and south of the proposed Project site. Existing commercial uses are located to the south and east, with proposed expansion to the east and southeast. Industrial uses are located to the north and east. The proposed site plan has been designed with smart City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency growth principles in mind to promote the orderly development of the site and walkability of the area. The proposed residential densities would be compatible with neighboring residential areas. Proposed multifamily housing would provide an appropriate transition between the single-family and proposed commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses would be consistent with the existing land uses in the proposed Project vicinity. It should be noted that proposed commercial uses along the Coffee Road corridor are currently permitted by the existing zoning. Development on-site is also subject to Planned Commercial Development approval, Planned Unit Development approval, and Zoning Ordinance requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project uses would be internally and externally compatible in terms of their relationship among individual buildings and sites. The General Plan amendment would effectively promote the concept of a new center consisting of a compatible mix of uses on the periphery of urban areas as described in the Land Use element of the City's MBGP. Land Use Element: Policies Land Use Policy No. 1: This policy outlines all land use designations as depicted on the Land Use Plan. Consistent. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment, which would be reclassified as listed in Table IV.A-2. Land Use Policy No. 2: Allow for the development of a variety of residential types and densities. Consistent. The Project provides for a mixture of single and multi-family residences. Land Use Policy No. 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources. Consistent. The Project ensures that residential areas are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources as described below. Arterials linking to all areas of Bakersfield are in close proximity to the proposed Project site and include Coffee Road, Brimhall Road, Rosedale Highway, Calloway Drive, and the future proposed Westside Parkway connection at Coffee Road south of the proposed Project site. Service utilities and recreational opportunities are also available. The placement of residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes, as proposed by the Project, promotes a walkable environment that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, as well as air City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency pollution and community noise levels. Additionally, this walkable environment includes parks, trails, open space, and linkages to the City's existing park system that would accommodate the recreational needs of the on-site residents. Land Use Policy No. 4: Encourage maintenance of the residential character of specially identified neighborhoods through such mechanisms as architectural design, landscape, and property setbacks. Consistent. Project development would be subject to the Zoning Ordinance design review requirements and site plan approvals. Tentative tract maps would be reviewed by the Bakersfield Planning Commission to ensure that architectural design, landscape and property setbacks are appropriately appropriately incorporated into the Project design. Building setbacks would be appropriately landscaped to maintain or enhance the existing residential areas adjoining the proposed Project area. Land Use Policy No. 6: Retain existing residential neighborhoods as designated on the Land Use Plan, and allow for the infill of residential land uses which are compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent. The proposed Project would not alter land use designations in existing residential areas. The proposed Project provides for development densities and uses which are similar to the characteristics of the existing single-family uses to the south and west and would provide an appropriate transition between adjoining residential and other proposed uses. See also discussion above related to Land Use Policy No. 4. Land Use Policy No. 39: Enhance existing and establish new centers as the principal focus of development and activity in the planning area, around which other land uses are grouped. “Centers” may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character. Consistent. The Project’s proposed site plan implements important policy directions promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. This infill project would establish a new center of activity in northwest Bakersfield that would become the principal focus of development and activity in this planning area. The proposed Project’s mix of uses would be built around a “main street” concept. Retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional “main street” to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. Land Use Policy No. 50: Coordinate with the appropriate agencies so that adequate land and facilities are set aside for schools, parks, police/fire, libraries, cultural facilities, recreational facilities and other service uses to serve the community. Consistent. The Project Project Applicant has been coordinating with the appropriate agencies. Local agencies were contacted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. The agencies advised that the increase in population would result in the need for the payment of fees including SB 50 fees, and either parkland dedication or payment of Park Development fees. Additionally, the proposed Project shall be subject to the requirements of local service providers as a part of the Project review and approval. As noted in Section IV.N, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency Project would include improvements to the park space in an amount equivalent to one acre per thousand persons. Additionally, although the proposed General Plan amendment would change the on-site designation of Open Space, Parks and Recreational Facilities (OSP), the Project will provide parks and open space in exceedance of requirements and existing conditions.. Land Use Policy No. 52: Locate new development where infrastructure is available or can be expanded to serve the proposed development. Consistent. As discussed in Section IV.N, Public Services, and Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, utility infrastructure is either currently available for the proposed Project site during each development phase (2015, 2035, and buildout at 2035) or improvements to the existing infrastructure are planned in order to provide the proposed Project site and other future developments with adequate infrastructure. The Project proposes to transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. Transportation corridors including streets, pedestrian paths, greenways and bike paths would contribute to the system of fully-connected routes to all destinations within the proposed Project area. The proposed circulation system would provide prominent pedestrian linkages to nearby services, centers and transit routes and create public access for everyone in the community. Land Use Policy No. 53: Ensure that land use and infrastructure development are coordinated. Consistent. The development of the proposed Project site would be coordinated with infrastructure improvements as described above. Refer to analysis for Land Use Goal No. 4 and Land Use Policies No. 50 and 52. Land Use Policy No. 54: The developer shall be responsible for all on-site costs incurred as a result of the proposed Project, in addition to a proportional share of off-site costs incurred in service extension or improvements. The availability of public or private services or resources shall be evaluated during discretionary project consideration. Availability may affect project approval or result in a reduction in size, density, or intensity otherwise indicated in the general plan’s map provisions. Consistent. Refer to analysis for Land Use Goal No. 4 and Land Use Policies No. 50 and No. 52. Land Use Policy No. 56: Review and evaluate the land use designations of the plan or agreement of a final route alignment of the Route 178/58 Freeway, and any other future freeways, to ensure appropriate land use Consistent. According to the MBGP -Circulation Element, no freeways are planned within the proposed Project site and the proposed Project site is not located close enough to Highway 178 and Highway 58 to be City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency relationships including: Adequate setbacks, buffers, and/or restrictions on residential density to prevent noise impacts; Potential for commercial services at principal off-ramps; Potential for industrial uses which can benefit by close freeway proximity. impacted from the final route alignment. The Westside Parkway will be an 8-mile long east-west corridor beginning at Stockdale Highway near Heath Road and connecting to the Truxtun Avenue/Oak Street area near State Route 99. Intermediate access connections will be provided through interchanges at Allen Road, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road south of the Project and Mohawk Street. The proposed Project’s commercial uses would be consistent with the policy’s goal of of maximizing commercial opportunities at principal off-ramps and will not impede any future plans for roadways. Land Use Policy No. 62: Provide signage which is adequately spaced and clearly visible during the day and night to control vehicular traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. Consistent. Signage plans have not been submitted for the Project. Signage proposed in the future will be consistent with the Bakersfield sign ordinance or an adopted sign plan. Land Use Policy No. 63: Encourage the use of creative and distinctive signage which establishes a distinctive image for the Planning area and identifies principal entries to the metropolitan area, unique districts, neighborhoods and locations. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy No. 62. Land Use Policy No. 66: Prohibit the use of private, permanent signs in residential neighborhoods, except those for identification, sales and rental of property. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy No. 62. Land Use Policy No. 67: Develop a distinctive identity for the Bakersfield region which differentiates it as a unique place in Southern San Joaquin Valley. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Goal No. 1. Land Use Policy No. 69: Allow variation in the use of street trees, shrubs, lighting and other details to give streets better visual continuity and increased shade canopy. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy No. 4. The landscaping plan would provide for a variety of street trees, shrubs, lighting and other details that would enhance the visual appearance of the streets, provide shading benefits and promote walkability of the site. Land Use Policy No. 70: Provide for installation of street trees which enhance pedestrian activity and convey a distinctive high quality visual image. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy Nos. 4 and 69. Land Use Policy No. 71: Encourage landscaping the banks of flood control channels, canals, roadways and other public improvements with trees to provide a strong visual visual element in the planning area. Consistent. The Project design proposes to integrate landscaped bio-swales, and retention features within landscaped corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, recreational fields, and perimeter planting areas. The Project would be required to landscape proposed improvements in accordance with the MBGP, Zoning Ordinance and relevant City of Bakersfield policies. Land Use Policy No. 72: Promote the establishment of Consistent. Onsite buildings, plantings, paving for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency attractive entrances into communities, major districts, and transportation terminals, centers, and corridors within the Planning area. pedestrians and other pedestrian treatments and destinations would build a friendly, walkable urban environment by utilizing combinations of landscape, architecture, paseos, gardens, plazas and street plantings. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy Nos. 4 and 69. Land Use Policy No. 74: Encourage the establishment of design programs which may include signage, street furniture, landscape, lighting, pavement treatments, public art, and architectural design. Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Land Use Policy Nos. 4 and 69. Land Use Policy No. 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan. Consistent. The proposed Project site is currently vacant and includes the construction of residential and commercial uses. The proposed development would be constructed consistent with the policies of the MBGP as analyzed in this document. Land Use Policy No. 79: Provide for an orderly outward expansion of new urban development (any commercial, industrial, and residential development having a density greater than one unit per acre) so that it maintains continuity of existing development, allows for the incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services, minimizes impacts on natural environmental resources, and provides a high quality environment for living and business. Consistent. The Project proposes to transform an underutilized site into an orderly and sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure infrastructure and public services. As discussed in the analysis above for Land Use Goals Nos. 1, 4 and 6 and Land Use Policy No. 4, the proposed Project would maintain the continuity of existing development, allow for the incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services, minimize impacts on natural environmental resources and provide a high quality environment for living and business. The proposed Project would create a modern lifestyle retail center that integrates the diversity of proposed uses and meets the needs of the surrounding community. Land Use Policy No. 82: Preserve existing significant sound residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial areas. Consistent. Refer to analysis for Land Use Goals Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Land Use Policy No. 95: When planning for new development, coordinate with utility companies to designate future or potential electrical transmission line corridors as needed to serve the metropolitan area. Consistent. The Project Applicant has coordinated with public service and utility agencies to identify required improvements to accommodate the proposed Project. No significant impacts have been identified, and the proposed Project would construct and/or contribute toward infrastructure improvements as necessary. Land Use Policy No. 99: Develop a plan to ensure that all parking lots are 40 percent shaded at maturity to help alleviate heat island effect. Consistent. Refer to analysis for Land Use Goal Nos. 69 and 71. The proposed Project would be required to landscape proposed improvements in accordance with the MBGP, Zoning Ordinance and relevant City of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.A-3 Policy Consistency Analysis with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Chapter II Land Use Element Goals and Policies Project Consistency Bakersfield policies. Land Use Policy No. 100: Encourage the use of reflective roofing material and other measures that reduce the heat island effect. Consistent. Building materials are subject to the Zoning Ordinance and design review requirements. The proposed Project would incorporate these measures and final development plans would be reviewed and approved consistent with applicable City ordinances. Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Urban Decay An Economic Impact Analysis was prepared by CBRE Consulting for this Draft EIR dated July 2009, to assess the economic impacts and potential for urban decay as well as the associated impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Project. A copy of the full report is included in Appendix D, Economic Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The analysis provides the basis for assessing the possibility of the proposed Project resulting in “urban decay” and deterioration as an indirect physical impact of the proposed Project vis-a-vis new retail space causing existing space to become vacant, with subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers. Based on the analysis contained therein and discussed in detail in Section IV.B, Urban Decay, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project development would not trigger “urban decay” issues within the greater Bakersfield area. Impact Discussion: Proposed Land Use and Zoning –Surrounding Areas The Project proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the MBGP, which would reclassify the approximately 255 acre site as discussed in this section. In addition, the Project proposes zone changes concurrent with the General Plan Amendment to rezone the property. Existing Zoning The C-2 zone is intended to permit development of concentrated large-scale retail operations providing a broad range of goods and services to serve the metropolitan market area. The C-2 zone permits retail uses including but not limited to apparel and accessory stores, appliance stores, automobile dealerships and certain auto-related uses, banks, savings and loans, credit unions and other financial institutions, department stores, farmers market, garages for public or commercial parking, governmental services and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 administration, hospitals, hotels, including restaurants, bars and cocktail lounges, motion picture theaters and auditoriums, restaurant and related eating places, including drive-through services and on-site alcohol sales. Residential uses are not permitted by right within the C-2 zone. The M-1 Zone permits those uses allowed in both the C-2 Zone and subordinate commercial zones, as well as those light industrial uses that would not produce, cause or emit any fumes, odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise or vibration detrimentally impacting neighboring property and the occupants, including but not limited to distribution and manufacturing facilities, paint mixing plants, ceramic production, truck storage, and textile manufacturing. The M-2 Zone allows those uses permitted in the M-1 Zone as well as more intensive industrial and manufacturing uses including but not limited to, petroleum refining, paint, paper, soap, firearm, plastics and brick manufacturing, distilleries, and forging plants. The R-1 Zone allows for a one-family dwelling and accessory buildings or structures. Residential facilities serving less than six persons as well as family day care centers are also allowable uses. The OS Zone provides for permanent open spaces and recreational uses and allows for agricultural use, parks for passive use, wildlife preservation, riding and hiking trials, and permanent unlighted recreation facilities such as softball diamonds, playground equipment, and tennis courts. Proposed Zoning The Project proposes zone changes concurrent with the General Plan Amendment to reclassify portions of the site from C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone), M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and M-2 (General Manufacturing) to C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial Zone/Planned Commercial Development) and CC/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development) zones. The Project also proposes zone changes from R-1 1 (Single Family Dwelling) to R-3/PUD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Unit Development). The C-C zone is intended for those areas in the City that are planned for mixed use development centers consisting of commercial and residential uses. Uses permitted in the C-C Zone include but are not limited to those uses permitted in the C-2 Zone, as well as apartments, hotels, transit station, parking garage or surface lot; multiple-family dwelling; and single-family dwelling provided it is attached to and accessory to a commercial use. Additionally, mixed combinations of commercial and residential uses are permitted in the C-C Zone. Uses permitted in the R-3 zone include multiple family dwellings and apartment houses, accessory buildings or structures, and all uses permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones. The proposed Project is intended to create a community and pedestrian-oriented environment with retail, theater, office, and residential uses; it is anticipated that on-site retail uses could include an urban, upscale upscale lifestyle retail center west of Coffee Road and community-serving retail east of Coffee Road. Lifestyle City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 centers typically have an open-air configuration, landscaped promenades, attractive gathering areas and include national chain specialty stores in addition to local independent specialty stores. Lifestyle centers usually include one or more restaurants, a multiplex cinema, and reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. The proposed Project would incorporate architectural design features through articulation, differentiating upper floors from ground floors, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas, parks and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, landscape and planted areas would be evenly distributed throughout surface parking areas. Under the proposed Project zone classifications, no new industrial uses would be permitted and the proposed Project does not include any industrial uses. With applicant proposed Project Design Features, which would limit heights, the proposed Project would be compatible with existing land uses in regards to height, setback, design, and scale. Adjacent land uses include Low-and Medium-Density Residential uses to the south and west, zoned R-1, and General Commercial uses, zoned C-2 to the east, south and southeast. Light and Heavy Industrial land uses, zoned M-1 and M-2, are also present in the Project vicinity. The PG&E power plant, located on the north side of the BNSF railroad tracks, is designated Light Industrial and Open Space. The Friant-Kern Canal adjoins the eastern boundary of the Project site. The transformation of the site from a generally vacant and underutilized light industrial site to an urban development, consisting of a mix of commercial, residential, and open space uses, would be consistent and compatible with the established land use patterns in the area. The proposed Project’s land use plan sets forth an arrangement of land uses that recognizes and would be compatible with adjacent and nearby off-site uses, particularly the existing residential areas to the south and west of the site. As proposed, the Project’s commercial uses would be located towards the eastern and central portions of the proposed Project site and in so doing take advantage of the proposed Project site’s frontages on Coffee and Brimhall Roads. Moving westward across the Project site, the proposed on-site land use patterns would then transition to multi-family residential uses, before reaching the western portion of the Project site wherein single-family residential uses are proposed. This arrangement of on-site land uses would create an appropriate and beneficial interface between the proposed Project uses and existing residential uses and existing and planned commercial uses, along Brimhall Road. The Project’s residential uses would be located across from the off-site residential uses to the south and west, with the on-site single-family residential uses providing an appropriate interface with the single-family residential uses located to the west of the Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 No residential communities would be displaced by Project-related activities, nor would the physical arrangement of the surrounding residential communities be modified or divided. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. As such, Project impacts with regard to land use compatibility would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed Project, combined with future development, would increase the intensity of land uses in the area. Potential impacts associated with cumulative development in the site vicinity would result in increased urbanization and loss of potential open space or properties previously used for mineral petroleum extraction (refer to Section IV.H, Mineral Resources, in this Draft EIR for further analysis). Impact Discussion: Cumulative Impacts Projects located within the cumulative project radius noted in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR, are evaluated pursuant to the MBGP as well as land use compatibility. Cumulative land use impacts could occur if other related projects in the vicinity of the Project site would result in incompatible land uses or land uses inconsistent with adopted land use plans, when combined with the impacts of the proposed Project. Of the twenty eight (28) related projects located in the Northwest Quadrant, eleven (11) of these projects involve development of residential dwelling units, five (5) include both a retail component in addition to residential development, and the remaining twelve (12) proposed projects involve industrial, retail, or office development. These projects are located within the same quadrant as the proposed Project and within close enough proximity to the proposed Project site to potentially result in a cumulative land use impact. A total of 15,366 residential units, 7,731,387 square feet of retail and/or office development, and 633 acres of industrial development would result from implementation of these projects. (See Table III-3 and Figure III-6 for a list of related projects, their location, and size. The 28 projects within the Northwest Quadrant are Related Project Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 65, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, and 84). The proposed Project would result in the development of 425 dwelling units which would generate approximately 1,284 new residents on the Project site.2 The residential population generated by the 2 Based on an average household size of 3.02 persons per the City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated January 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, accessed May 19, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.A. Land Use Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 proposed Project would be within the forecasts for the City and County, therefore, impacts regarding population growth would be less than significant (See the comprehensive analysis of population issues in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR). Cumulatively, the proposed Project and the above noted related projects within the northwest Bakersfield area would convert existing vacant and underutilized property to accommodate new development that provides a full mix of uses, compatible with the natural environs and complementary to existing land uses. The proposed Project would implement important local and regional goals and policies for the northwest Bakersfield area, which would achieve both short-and long-term planning goals and objectives. Likewise, future residential and commercial development associated with the related projects would support opportunities for revitalization and managed growth as encouraged by the MBGP goals and objectives. Such development would be consistent with Kern Council of Governments policies, and other regional policies for promoting housing options and urban centers which capitalize on the area’s setting and location as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Furthermore, all related projects in the City of Bakersfield would be subject to the same local development standards as the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not combine with any of the related projects to create a cumulatively significant land use impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES Proposed development would be in accordance with the policy and design standards established by the MBGP and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project land use would be consistent with applicable land use goals and policies and would be compatible with adjacent land uses; therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant, no specific land use mitigation measures are required or recommended. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The preceding analysis concludes that the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable land use policies. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would ensure consistency between land use designations and corresponding zoning classifications. The proposed Project would be functionally and physically compatible with existing land uses, supported by public improvements and open space amenities, and would transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. Furthermore, proposed Project development would not lead to a condition of urban decay within the greater Bakersfield area. Therefore, potential Project impacts with respect to land use and urban decay would be less than significant. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS B. URBAN DECAY INTRODUCTION This section addresses the subject of “urban decay” (i.e., physical degradation) with respect to the proposed Project and describes the economic impacts and potential for urban decay resulting from the retail portion of the proposed Project in conjunction with the introduction of other retail developments in the City and the surrounding area. The issues of visual deterioration are addressed by considering the potential for urban decay that may be precipitated or exacerbated in Metropolitan Bakersfield and its environs, and the indirect changes in visual quality that could occur as a result of the proposed Project. This analysis was performed to determine whether any potential physical impacts to competing commercial uses might result from economic effects of the proposed Project. That is, will implementation of the Project as proposed result in significant market shifts in the region resulting in declining sales of like commercial activities leading eventually to store closures and the increase in commercial vacancies that lead to “urban decay”. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Visual Character The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield, east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway (refer to Figures III-1 and III-2 in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting). Metropolitan Bakersfield includes the City of Bakersfield, its designated sphere of influence, and contiguous properties located in the unincorporated portions of Kern County. The Metropolitan Bakersfield area covers approximately 408 square miles and is characterized by a core of urban and suburban land use types that were developed along the principal north-south arterial of the Central Valley, State Route 99 (SR-99), and the Kern River. The core area is generally surrounded by low intensity agriculture, oil production, and open spaces in which small communities historically developed as agricultural centers. In recent years, greater development has occurred in the northwest and southwest portions of the community. Metropolitan Bakersfield contains several unique and identifiable neighborhoods, including Downtown, Westchester, Old Stockdale, Rosedale, Oleander, Seven Oaks, Rio Bravo, Riverlakes and other established portions of the community. Distinctive architectural themes have been created in recent residential and commercial developments in the southwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield through the use of landscaping, signage, and consistent architectural design. Aesthetic incompatibilities are noticeable where commercial and residential uses are located along major transportation corridors or where commercial and residential uses are adjacent to industrial uses without adequate buffers. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Existing Commercial Development Character As discussed in Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) separates the City into four quadrants, with SR-99 serving as the north-south axis and Stockdale Highway (SR-58) serving as the east-west axis. These four quadrants are further subdivided into developed urban and rural-undeveloped areas. The Project site is located in the Urban Northwest Planning Area of Bakersfield. Visual character-defining uses in the Project area include sizeable vacant lands to the north, south, and east; single-family home subdivisions to the south and west; commercial and industrial uses concentrated along Rosedale Highway; prominent retail centers including the Northwest Promenade (which includes approximately one million square feet of major big box anchor retail tenants) to the north and Stockdale Villages to the south; and the Kern River Parkway recreational node and bicycle path to the south. A number of small, isolated commercial businesses are scattered throughout the vicinity of the Project area, along with a mix of small-and medium-scaled retail centers, and big box centers. Isolated commercial and retail businesses in the vicinity of the Project site include a Fastrip gas station, Pedal Car Café, Rollerama, Las Palmas Nursery, and Chevron gas station at the intersection of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road; and scattered commercial/industrial uses off Shellabarger Road, Elzworth Street, and Langley Avenue adjacent to the northwest portion of the Project site. Small-and medium-scaled retailers in the vicinity of the Project site include an Action Sports-based strip-mall at Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive (Brimhall Square), approximately 0.25 mile west of the Project site; a recently constructed strip mall located at the southeast corner of Brimhall and Calloway Drive, approximately approximately 0.25 mile west of the Project site; a Rite Aid at the same intersection; a strip mall at Coffee Road and Truxtun Avenue (approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site) containing a Frugatti’s Italian Restaurant and Finish Line Bicycle & Pro Shop; and an Albertson’s-based strip mall approximately 0.75 mile south of the Project site at Coffee Road and Stockdale Highway (Stockdale Villages) also containing a Trader Joe’s and Action Sports. Big box retailers in the immediate vicinity of the Project site include The Home Depot and Lowe’s Home Improvement Store, which are at the intersection between Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road, adjacent to the northernmost portion of the Project site. Additionally, the Northwest Promenade is located along Rosedale Highway, west of Coffee Road, approximately 0.25 mile north of the northernmost portion of the Project site. The Northwest Promenade on a site of approximately 100 acres includes major big box anchor retail tenants (including Walmart, Target, Office Depot, Best Buy, etc.), grocery stores, specialty shops, and restaurants. The East Hills Mall, located off State Route 178 approximately seven miles east of the Project, is anchored by two Gottschalk’s outlets, Mervyn’s, and a United Artists Theatre complex. Valley Plaza, located off of State Route 99 south of the Project, includes four anchor department stores and a Pacific Theaters cinema complex. These commercial areas appear to have been built to serve market demand generated by new residential development that is encroaching upon the Project area from the vicinity of the Project site and from areas north of Rosedale Highway. These types of retail outlets are far removed from the “main street” kind of shopping corridor that typifies City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 downtown Bakersfield. The types of retail that are currently being developed on the outskirts of the City tend to be typical suburban-style commercial strip centers. Regulatory Framework The State CEQA Guidelines do not contain set standards of significance for economic impacts, because as stated in Section 15382, CEQA does not consider an economic or social change by itself a significant effect on the environment. However, physical changes that could result from economic or social effects of projects are within the scope of CEQA considerations. Section 15131 echoes this statement and establishes that if included, these issues need only be mentioned to the extent necessary to “…trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision.” Accordingly, an economic analysis was prepared assessing the Project’s potential to induce physical change as a result of its economic or social effects. The results of the project economic analysis are summarized below. The complete economic analysis, Bakersfield Commons Economic Impact Analysis, by CBRE Consulting dated July 2009, is included as Appendix D, Economic Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. METHODOLOGY The Economic Impact Analysis assess economic impacts and to analyze the potential for the 1,400,000 square foot retail component of the proposed Project to directly or indirectly cause urban decay, which has been defined by the courts as “a chain reaction of store closures and long term vacancies, ultimately destroying existing neighborhoods and leaving decaying shells in their wake”.1 The analysis provides the basis for assessing the possibility of the proposed Project resulting in urban decay and deterioration as an indirect physical impact of the Project vis-a-vis new retail space causing existing space to become vacant, with subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers. Analysis of the potential for new retail development to cause urban decay requires a two-stage analysis. First, it must be determined whether the proposed Project would attract retail sales away from existing and/or other planned future retail centers to any significant degree. Second, if it can be reasonably foreseen that sales would be attracted away from other retailers, then it must be determined whether the severity of this change in economic circumstances would cause disinvestment that is substantial enough to result in business closures, abandonment or other forms of physical deterioration or other manifestations of urban decay. 1 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 at 1204. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The analysis defined a market trade area2 for each of the proposed Project components, projected the total retail sales generated by the Project within the relevant trade area, and used this as the basis for determining the extent to which the proposed project could be supported in the market area without negatively impacting existing businesses. The study methodology included the completion of the following tasks: • Identified major competitive retail developments in and around select Bakersfield and Kern County areas; • Conducted fieldwork to evaluate existing market conditions; • Estimated the retail sales associated with Project development phases; • Defined the Project’s market areas; • Estimated the share of the Project’s sales to be generated by residents of the Project market areas; • Estimated Project market areas’ retail sales; • Conducted retail demand, demand, sales attraction, and spending leakage analysis for the Project market areas; • Estimated the maximum potential impacts on existing Project market area retailers due to the introduction of the Project; • Assessed the competitiveness of existing Project market areas stores and likely impacts on these stores; • Identified competitive planned retail projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts; • Assessed the cumulative impacts of planned retail projects; • Assessed the potential impacts to retail outside of but near the Project market areas; and • Assessed the extent to which the Project and the opening of other cumulative retail developments may or may not contribute to urban decay. 2 A trade area is the geographic market that a development would offer potential retailers as a consumer and should reflect the geography from which retail sales are generated. Different stores can have different trade areas based on their individual drawing power and the competitive market context. A trade area traditionally is the geographic area that provides the majority of the steady customers necessary to support a shopping center. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance CEQA itself does not provide any specific direction as to what should be considered a significant urban decay impact. However, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield indicated that a significant adverse physical change in the environment resulting from economic impacts or a proposed retail project, or “urban decay,” is characterized by a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies ultimately destroying neighborhoods. Based on the direction of the Court of Appeal, the City of Bakersfield (City) has determined that the Project would have a significant impact if: • The development of the proposed Project would result in a diversion of sales from existing retailers within the Bakersfield market area that is severe enough to lead to business closures, and in turn, the resulting business closures are significant enough in scale to result in long-term vacancies that affect the viability of existing shopping centers or districts. Proposed Project Retail Component For purposes of the analysis, the proposed Project’s 1,400,000 square feet of retail was distributed between retail categories that match the classifications reported by the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) as summarized in Table IV.B-1, Square Footage by BOE Category. BOE retail categories, as typically reported for cities, include: General Merchandise stores; Apparel stores; Food stores; Eating and Drinking places; Home Furnishings and Appliances; Building Materials; Motor Vehicles and Parts; Services Stations; and Other Retail stores (which includes the proposed cinema complex). The retail component of the proposed Project is anticipated to be developed in Phases I and II, which will be completed in 2015 and between 2025 and 2035, respectively. For the purpose of this analysis, the years 2016 and 2036 are assumed to be the first full years of Phase I and Phase II retail operations, respectively. Approximately 800,000 square feet of retail space would be built on the portion of the site west of Coffee Road during Phase I. An additional 200,000 square feet of retail would be developed in this area during Phase II, in conjunction with 400,000 square feet of retail space located on the portion of the site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF railroad. At buildout in 2035, the total Project retail component will comprise 1,000,000 million square feet of retail space west of Coffee Road and 400,000 square feet of retail space east of Coffee Road (and south of the BNSF railroad). The portion to the west of Coffee Road will be a lifestyle shopping center, while the portion to the east of Coffee Road will be a community-serving retail center. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.B-1 Square Footage by BOE Category Space Category Phase I Square Feet* Phase II Square Feet* Total Square Feet* Lifestyle Shopping Center General Merchandise, Apparel, Furnishings, and Other Retail (GAFO) 600,000 200,000 800,000 Eating and Drinking Facilities 80,000 -80,000 Convenience Goods (Food/Drug) 50,000 -50,000 Entertainment-Related (Cinema Complex) 70,000 -70,000 Subtotal 800,000 200,000 1,000,000 Community Shopping Center General Merchandise, Apparel, Furnishings, and Other Retail (GAFO) -310,000 310,000 Eating and Drinking Facilities -60,000 60,000 Convenience Goods (Food/Drug) -30,000 30,000 Entertainment-Related (Cinema Complex) ---Subtotal -400,000 400,000 Total General Merchandise, Apparel, Furnishings, and Other Retail (GAFO) 600,000 510,000 1,110,00 0 Eating and Drinking Facilities 80,000 60,000 140,000 Convenience Goods (Food/Drug) 50,000 50,000 30,000 80,000 Entertainment-Related (Cinema Complex) 70,000 -70,000 Total 800,000 600,000 1,400,00 0 * Square feet expressed in Gross Leasable Area (GLA). Source: CBRE Consulting, July 2009. The distribution of retail space by phase and by major category is shown in Table IV.B-2, Estimated Sales by Retail Category in 2009 Dollars, with projections of the expected sales volume per square foot of retail space and the expected annual sales volume expressed in 2009 constant dollars. This analysis assumed an average vacancy rate of five percent of the gross leasable area in order to account for normal tenant turnover. The five percent assumption is consistent with historic market vacancy rates in Bakersfield, which averaged 6.4 percent from year-end 2004 through year-end 2008. For the same time period, the vacancy rate in Northwest Bakersfield, where the proposed Project is located, averaged 5.7 percent. These averages were adjusted downward to 5.0 percent because a shopping center’s leasing strength is directly related to its age. New shopping centers, therefore, generally have lower vacancy rates than the market average. Stabilized sales are not expected to occur during the first year of store operations, but rather the second or third year, which is typical of new retail operations. The longer it takes for sales to stabilize at the Project, the less impact there will be on local retailers, due to the effects of increasing demand over time due to population growth. Therefore, to be conservative, this analysis assumes City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 stabilized sales are achieved in 2016 for Phase I of the Project and 2036 for Phase II of the proposed Project. Table IV.B-2 Estimated Sales by Retail Category in 2009 Dollars Retail Category Estimated Occupied Sq. Ft. Estimated Sales Per Sq. Ft. Annual Sales Estimates Phase I (2016) Lifestyle Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel 413,250 $334 $138,108,537 Food Stores 23,750 $462 $10,982,150 Eating & Drinking Places 76,000 $433 $32,940,944 Home Furnishings & Appliances 47,500 $278 $13,211,609 Other Retail Stores Cinema Complex Balance of Other Retail 70,000 133,000 $50 $356 $3,500,000 $47,333,591 Subtotal/Average Phase I 763,500 $322 $246,076,830 Phase II (2036) Lifestyle Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel 95,000 $355 $33,744,651 Food Stores ---Eating & Drinking Places ---Home Furnishings & Appliances 47,500 $278 $13,211,609 Other Retail Stores Cinema Complex Balance of Other Retail -47,500 -$356 -$16,904,854 Subtotal/Average Lifestyle Shopping Center 190,000 $336 $63,861,113 Community Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel 235,125 $311 $73,037,166 Food Stores 14,250 $462 $6,589,290 Eating & Drinking Places 57,000 $433 $24,705,708 Home Furnishings & Appliances ---Other Retail Stores Cinema Complex Balance of Other Retail -73,625 -$356 -$26,202,523 Subtotal/Average Community Center 380,000 $344 $130,534,688 Subtotal/Average Phase II 570,000 $341 $194,395,801 Project Total General Merchandise and Apparel 743,375 $333 $244,890,354 Food Stores 38,000 $462 $17,571,440 Eating & Drinking Places 133,000 $433 $57,646,652 Home Furnishings & Appliances 95,000 $278 $26,423,218 Other Retail Stores Cinema Complex Balance of Other Retail 70,000 254,125 $50 $356 $3,500,000 $90,440,968 TOTAL/AVERAGE 1,333,500 $334 $440,472,631 Source: CBRE Consulting, July 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Market Area Retail market area geographies are dictated in large part by each center’s format and market orientation. Given the two distinct retail components of the Project, the unique geography and urban characteristics of Kern County and the location of existing and proposed competitive retail facilities, two market areas were determined: one for the lifestyle shopping center (Lifestyle Market Area); and one for the community shopping center (Community Market Area). The two market areas defined for the Project were determined through two distinct processes to account for the fact that the community shopping center and the lifestyle shopping center will be oriented towards two distinct consumer markets. Consistent with industry definitions of shopping center market areas, however, they each represent the geographic area in which the estimated majority of the shopping center’s repeat customers are anticipated to reside. The Lifestyle Market Area encompasses much of western Bakersfield and areas of unincorporated Kern County. It is more extensive than the Community Market Area, which generally extends approximately 1 to 3 miles in all directions. The Lifestyle Market Area is shown in Figure IV.B-1, Lifestyle Market Area & Regional Average Household Income. Existing and Proposed Retail There are a number of existing and proposed shopping centers and retail clusters in the City of Bakersfield that would compete for sales with the proposed Project. The locations of these existing and proposed projects are shown in Figure III-6, Related Projects Map, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. The most recently reported retail data for the greater Bakersfield area indicate a vacancy rate of 9.6 percent at year-end 2008, which is well above the average of 5.6 percent for year-end 2004 through yearend 2007. The increased vacancy rate is mostly due to growth in the retail inventory, i.e., the completion of new retail centers, rather than the closure and subsequent vacancy of former stores. From year-end 2007 to year-end 2008, the greater Bakersfield retail inventory increased from 10.8 million to 11.2 million square feet, reflecting that approximately 444,000 square feet of retail space were added to the market. Over the same period, approximately 91,000 square feet of previously occupied space were vacated, representing approximately 20 percent of the 444,000 square feet of vacant space. The new supply of retail space has driven the vacancy rate upwards to a greater extent than have store closures. As homebuilding activity re-commences and associated consumer demand from new households picks up, the retail vacancy rate is likely to decline. Figure IV.B-1 Lifestyle Market Area & Regional Average Household Income Source: CBRE Mapping Services, 5/27/2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Northwest Bakersfield, where the Project is located, is a relatively new, rapidly growing submarket of higher-end residential and master-planned communities west of Highway 99 and north of the Kern River. Major retail in the Northwest is clustered along Rosedale Highway, with a main concentration of highvolume retailers at Northwest Promenade, which has added approximately 900,000 square feet to the retail base since its first phase opened in 1998. The major tenants at Northwest Promenade include Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Target Greatland, Home Depot, Petco, Office Depot, Ross Dress for Less, Pier 1 Imports, and Payless Shoe Source. There is also a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse in the Project vicinity, located across Rosedale Highway from Northwest Promenade. The northwest quadrant appears to be the healthiest submarket within Bakersfield. Although high compared to historic trends, the current vacancy rate of 8.4 percent is the lowest of the four Bakersfield area submarkets, and with the exception of the Save Mart on Calloway Road, vacancies are primarily due to new centers leasing up or to a national retailer’s financial restructuring. This suggests that retailers have not lost interest in this submarket. With the exception of the proposed Project, new retail developments and planned projects are generally concentrated along the peripheral areas of the City of Bakersfield, or in unincorporated areas. The proposed Project is one of the few large tracts of land planned for retail development that is located on an urban infill site within a reasonable distance of both pre-existing development close to downtown, and areas with impending residential growth. Table IV.B-3, Cumulative Retail Development Projects In or Near the Lifestyle Market Area, provides a best estimate of future retail development in Kern County, which considers major retail development programs programs that are either approved for development or undergoing entitlement and a number of smaller programs that are likely to provide new retail space in the market area including the Project. In total, they represent approximately 11 million square feet of planned retail, of which 3.6 million square feet would likely be developed between 2007 and 2016. Depending on actual market conditions, some projects may be accelerated while others may be delayed, change their programs or never be completed. Table IV.B-3 Cumulative Retail Development Projects In or Near the Lifestyle Market Area No. Project Name Planned Square Footage Estimated Opening Lifestyle Market Area 26 McAllister Ranch 1,500,000 Unknown 17 Saco Ranch 1,406,000 Unknown 27 Rosedale Ranch 1,400,000 Unknown 28 Old River Ranch 686,000 Unknown 70 Panama Grove 550,000 2016-2035 1 Gosford Village 430,175 2009-2015 11 Bakersfield Sports Village 400,000 2016-2035 7 Stockdale Ranch 359,370 Unknown 61 99 Houghton LLC 307,098 Unknown 23 Shops at River Walk 298,000 2009-2015 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.B-3 Cumulative Retail Development Projects In or Near the Lifestyle Market Area No. Project Name Planned Square Footage Estimated Opening 22 Crossroads 235,992 2009-2015 54 Rosedale Target 228,966 2009-2015 16 Rio Bravo Ranch 208,000 Unknown 38 CNC Properties 204,347 2009-2015 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers 177,000 2009-2015 55 Rosedale Crossings 175,000 2009-2015 71 SWC Taft 150,000 Unknown 56 Silver Creek Plaza 137,609 2009-2015 66 River Oaks Plaza 130,000 Unknown 13 Minaberri 95,000 Unknown 63 East Hills Mall 80,000 Unknown 72 Porter & Associates 65,340 Unknown 60 Destination at Old Farm 56,400 2009-2015 65 Neighborhood Development LLC 170,000 Unknown 59 Rosedale Square 25,000 2009-2015 Subtotal Lifestyle Market Area 8,789,297 -Outside of the Lifestyle Market Area 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont 1,000,000 2009-2015 50 Guimarra/Moreland 261,360 Unknown 58 Panama & 99 Walmart 245,905 2009-2015 64 Denala/Dewalt 362,000 Unknown 62 Garrone/McKinzie 200,000 Unknown 57 Target at Valley Plaza Mall 140,000 2009-2015 73 Dominguez/Cuevas 117,612 Unknown 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use 89,000 2009-2015 74 Salvadore Chipres 71,874 Unknown 6 Canyons 65,000 Unknown Subtotal Outside of the Lifestyle Market Area 2,552,751 -Total 11,342,048 -Project as a Percent of Total 17.6% -The analysis provided in Appendix D, Economic Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR, indicates that up to 1.3 million square feet of retail could close following development of the cumulative projects. There are a number of offsetting factors that would result in a reduction in the estimated size of the competitive planned retail supply and correspondingly reduce the analytically derived potential for an oversupply of retail space. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that 1.3 million square feet of existing retail will actually close following development of the cumulative projects. Because the Lifestyle Market Area crosses over more than one Bakersfield area retail submarket, it is difficult to determine the extent to which closure of up to 1.3 million square feet of retail would impact the retail inventory of the market area. However, relative to the entire Bakersfield area retail base, which totals approximately 13.1 million square feet (i.e., 11.6 million square feet plus approximately 1.5 million City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 square feet in the two regional malls), 1.3 million square feet comprises 10 percent of the existing retail base. This percentage would be lower across the entire retail inventory once the cumulative projects are developed. The Bakersfield area has a very strong history of backfilling retail space, suggesting a strong potential for vacant spaces to be reoccupied. This includes properties that have been vacant for long periods of time, such as the former Builders Square property on Ming Avenue, which is now a Home Depot. If vacancy starts to rise, it is unlikely that new projects would be developed at the level or pace projected in the analysis. An increase in vacancy would likely lead to lower lease rates, which would dampen interest in new development, constraining the profitability of new development, as older, well-positioned and welllocated properties attract attract retailers with more favorable lease rates. However, it is possible that some lesser amount of space would become vacant following development of the cumulative projects as a direct result of diverted sales. Some, relatively marginal operating retailers could especially be prone to closure if they experience an unsustainable decline in retail sales. Analysis of Proposed Project’s Impacts The analysis provided in Appendix D, Economic Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR indicates that absent consideration of cumulative projects, Phase I of the Project is not estimated to divert sales from existing retailers in any of the retail categories analyzed. Table IV.B-4, Potential Retail Sales Impacts Upon Stabilization in 2009 Dollars, in Millions, provides a summary of the maximum potential sales impacts from Phase 1 of the Project, as well as the potential impacts from all cumulative retail projects with an estimated completion date prior to the year 2016. When taking into consideration all cumulative projects planned in and near the market area, Phase I of the Project is estimated to have potential total sales diversions of $483.9 million after adjustments are made for a 3.0 percent typical variation in retail sales. The $483.9 million in maximum potential cumulative project impacts are equivalent to 13.4 percent of the existing Lifestyle Market Area retail sales base. The estimated diversions range from $37.5 million in the Home Furnishings and Appliances category to $193.7 million in the General Merchandise and Apparel category. Absent consideration of cumulative projects, the 200,000 net square feet of space added to the lifestyle shopping center during Phase II of development is not estimated to divert sales from existing market area retailers. Development of the 400,000-square-foot community shopping center is estimated to divert $37.4 million in sales from Community Market Area stores, concentrated in the General Merchandise and Apparel, Eating and Drinking Places, and Other Retail categories. These $37.4 37.4 million represent approximately 2.2 percent of the existing Community Market Area sales base. Table IV.B-4, Potential Retail Sales Impacts Upon Stabilization in 2009 Dollars, In Millions, provides a summary of these findings. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 A macroeconomic analysis of the cumulative projects estimated to be completed prior to 2036 was conducted in order to assess the impacts of Phase II of the Project in conjunction with these other potential developments. This macroeconomic approach, which estimates cumulative project impacts by comparing the prospective supply and demand of retail space, is an alternative to the approach used to analyze cumulative project impacts for Phase I of the Project, which are measured in terms of potential market area sales diversions. The macroeconomic approach is a more appropriate analysis for Phase II due to the long-term nature of this Phase. The cumulative project square feet were compared to the number of retail square feet estimated to be supportable by residential growth in each market area. This analysis concluded that if all planned projects are built and occupied to the densities specified in this report, then the Community Market Area would be characterized by an approximate shortage of 155,000 square feet of retail space in 2036, while the Lifestyle Market Area would have a surplus of 615,000 square feet in the same year. Table IV.B-4 Potential Retail Sales Impacts Upon Stabilization in 2009 Dollars, In Millions Retail Category Potential Market Area Sales Diversion Potential Cumulative Project Sales Diversions Phase I (2016) Lifestyle Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel $0.0 $193.7 Food Stores $0.0 $128.5 Eating & Drinking Places $0.0 $59.6 Home Furnishings & Appliances $0.0 $37.5 Other Retail Stores $0.0 $108.9 Subtotal/Average Phase I $0.0 $483.9 Phase II (2036)* Lifestyle Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel $0.0 N/A Food Stores $0.0 N/A Eating & Drinking Places $0.0 N/A Home Furnishings & Appliances $0.0 N/A Other Retail Stores $0.0 N/A Community Shopping Center General Merchandise and Apparel $23.9 N/A Food Stores $0.0 N/A Eating & Drinking Places $3.4 N/A Home Furnishings & Appliances $0.0 N/A Other Retail Stores $10.1 N/A Subtotal/Average Phase II $37.4 N/A * The potential cumulative project sales diversions were not quantified for Phase II. Source: CBRE Consulting, July 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 A statistical regression-based model was used to estimate retail spending potential for a market area based upon household counts, income, and consumer spending patterns. The model determines the extent to which a designated market area is or is not capturing its sales potential based upon reported taxable sales data. Retail categories in which spending is not fully captured are called “leakage” categories, while categories in which more sales are captured than are generated by market area residents are called “attraction” categories. Generally, attraction categories signal particular strengths of a retail market, while leakage categories signal particular weaknesses. Based on 2007 retail sales data, the Lifestyle Shopping Center market area had attraction in all retail categories, except Service Stations, with 27.4 percent of residents’ spending ($964.7 million) million) estimated within the market area. However, the performance across categories was varied. These findings indicate that in 2007, the market area had a strong retail sales draw, to which sales were attracted in almost every retail category. The market area can be characterized as fully meeting the retail needs of its resident population, as well as partially supporting the retail needs for households beyond the market area boundaries. These sales attraction and leakage findings suggest that the market area is a retail destination supporting numerous shopping centers and retailers that draw from a consumer base far exceeding the market area’s resident population. Based on 2007 retail sales data, the Community Shopping Center market area had even greater attraction than the Lifestyle Market Area, with 40.1 percent of residents’ spending ($573.3 million) estimated to occur within the geographic area. The Motor Vehicles and Parts category was the only category with sales leakage. These findings indicate that in 2007, the defined market area had a strong retail sales draw – even stronger than the Lifestyle Market Area – to which sales were attracted in almost every retail category. The market area can be characterized as fully meeting the retail needs of its resident population, as well as partially supporting the retail needs for households beyond the market area boundaries. These sales attraction and leakage findings suggest that the market area is a retail destination supporting numerous shopping centers and retailers that draw from a consumer base far exceeding the market area’s resident population. Urban Decay Determination Market research and interviews with local sources indicate that the retail markets in and around Bakersfield have experienced increased vacancy due to the current recession. Retail vacancy throughout Bakersfield increased from a low of 4.0 percent at year-end 2006 to a recent high of 9.6 percent at yearend 2008. During this time, the retail inventory increased by over 600,000 square feet, reaching 11.2 million square feet (excluding regional shopping centers). This increase in inventory, however, is roughly comparable to the overall increase in vacant retail space over the same time period, indicating that the occupied retail base throughout the Bakersfield market has remained relatively stable during the recession. The same is true in Northwest Bakersfield, where Project is located, with the occupied inventory totaling 3.0 million square feet in 2006, increasing slightly to 3.1 million square feet by yearend 2008. However, retail sales trend data indicate that despite the overall stability in the retail base, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 retail sales are down pursuant to the dampening effects of the economy. As the economy recovers, and household growth occurs, demand for new retail will increase, absorbing some existing market vacancy and providing demand for new retail. The analyses indicate that given anticipated market area household growth, Phases I and II of the Lifestyle Shopping Center are not anticipated to cause any sales to be diverted away from existing retailers. In contrast, the Phase II Community Shopping Center is forecast to contribute to some degree of retail sales diversions, most notably in the general merchandise and apparel and other retail stores categories. These and other sales impacts for the Community Shopping Center are estimated to total up to 28,341 square feet of retail space. While the size of the Community Market Area retail inventory is not identified, this level level of retail space is likely to be a very small increment relative to the base. Therefore, it is not anticipated that urban decay would result from development of the Project. However, taking into consideration other planned retail projects at various stages of development, there is potential for either sales diversions (Phase I) or retail oversupply (Phase II) associated with the Lifestyle Shopping Center. If these market characteristics occur, then there is the potential for retail vacancy to result, with supply exceeding demand. As stated above, only the cumulative impacts of the Phase I and Phase II development of the Lifestyle Shopping Center are anticipated to result in circumstances where impacts may be strong enough to potentially cause existing retailers to close or to result in an oversupply of retail. Absent the development of other cumulative projects, none of these impacts are anticipated to occur. Therefore, the levels of impact are dependent upon the degree to which the cumulative projects projects are developed and subsequently attract retail tenants. It is anticipated that the recovery from the recession will be characterized by the cautious execution of retailer expansions. Tenant demand is anticipated to dictate the pace of development, such that the many cumulative projects will be developed as warranted by the market. A number of factors will moderate this pace of development, limiting the potential for urban decay to ensue, including the availability of developer financing, retailer preleasing, retailer commitments, and difficulties related to the public process. As cited earlier, if all cumulative projects are developed coincident with Phase I, then the entire existing Bakersfield area retail base could incur a ten percent increase in vacancy. This figure would be lower when factored across the cumulative projects and other projects subsequently developed throughout the area. The retail development history in Bakersfield suggests that the level of development will not occur at the level necessary to increase the vacancy rate to this degree. Moreover, the field research, market research, and interviews conducted indicate that vacant properties in Bakersfield have a history of strong maintenance, with even chronic vacancies not symptomatic of urban decay. For example, at this time, with retail vacancy at a relative high, many of the retail centers in the Lifestyle Market Area and the surrounding area are performing reasonably well, with properties holding up well during the recession in City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 terms of maintenance, up-keep, and overall quality. When market conditions warrant, retail vacancies are filled, with only properties with unfavorable characteristics (e.g., the Builders Square on Ming, that was subsequently redeveloped by Home Depot after an extensive period of vacancy) or imposed constraints (such as the Vons at East Hills Plaza, which Vons is continuing to control in an effort to keep out competitive grocery stores) remaining vacant for prolonged periods of time. Even these properties, with the Builder’s Square vacant for approximately 12 years and the Vons vacant since 2005, have not been symptomatic of urban decay. Thus, Bakersfield’s history indicates that chronic retail vacancies are not prone to conditions of urban decay, indicating inherent market strength and property owner motivation to maintain property in sufficient condition to support new tenant occupation. Additionally, demographic trends in the region, including projected long-term population growth, indicate a growth trajectory, which bodes well for maintaining and growing the existing retail stock. Summary Based on the above analyses of the likely growth in demand for retail facilities in Bakersfield and Kern County and the detailed impact of the specific retail and other component uses at the proposed Project, growth in market demand in the relevant market areas is sufficiently strong to support the proposed retail, restaurant and entertainment space at the Project along with existing retail developments and other proposed projects without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the existing retail base. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not result in a diversion of sales from existing retailers within the Bakersfield market area that is severe enough to lead to business closures, and in turn, the resulting business closures closures are significant enough in scale to result in long-term vacancies which affect the viability of existing shopping centers or districts. Accordingly, urban decay would not occur and visual deterioration would not negatively impact the community or the environment as a result of urban decay. Thus, impacts on visual resources as a result of the development of the retail component of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. This conclusion also applies to cumulative projects analysis. MITIGATION MEASURES Because the proposed Project would not result in urban decay or significant impacts on visual resources, mitigation measures are not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project’s impacts on visual resources as a result of urban decay would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.B. Urban Decay Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.B-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC INTRODUCTION This section presents an analysis of the transportation system in northwest Bakersfield and addresses the direct construction and operating impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system. The study area for the transportation analysis includes the immediate Project area and surrounding roadways in the northwestern metropolitan Bakersfield area that could potentially be affected by traffic generated by the proposed Project during construction and operation. The traffic impact analysis for this Project was conducted by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (Gibson), October 2009, and is included in its entirety as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. The traffic impact analysis uses existing traffic counts, published average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, and Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) traffic model data. Analyses were performed for the years 2009 (existing conditions) and at completion of each phase of Project construction in 2015 and 2035. Traffic impacts for all scenarios were assessed based on roadway and intersection level of service (LOS). Improvements needed to maintain or improve operational levels of service were also identified as part of this study. At the request of the City, the traffic intersection impacts associated with the Project were analyzed according to two different impact criteria. Each analysis assumed the same existing conditions and analyzed the same study intersections. The first analysis considered the City of Bakersfield’s Adopted Traffic Impact Significance Criteria and is included in Appendix F, Traffic Study, to this Draft EIR. The second analysis considered the City’s Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria and is summarized in detail below. Also, an additional analysis of intersections along Rosedale Highway was conducted using an alternative analysis methodology that provides signal green-time priority to east-west traffic along the Rosedale Highway corridor. This analysis was conducted under both sets of significant impact criteria. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Setting The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield in Kern County, approximately one mile north of California State University, Bakersfield and the Kern River. Regional access to the Project site is provided via State Route 99 (SR 99) and State Route 58 (SR 58 or Rosedale Highway), located approximately 2.4 miles to the east and 0.5 miles to the north, respectively. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Local Setting Local access to the Project site is provided primarily via Coffee Road, a north-south roadway bisecting the Project site, and Brimhall Road, which runs east-west along the southern edge of the Project site, and via El Toro Viejo Road, a future connector alignment which would run north-south through the western portion of the Project Site. Roadway System The street system within the traffic analysis study area is primarily classified into freeways, arterial streets, and collector streets. Freeways are multi-lane divided California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facilities with restricted access. Freeways serve longer vehicle trips between different urban areas. Posted speed limits on freeway facilities generally range between 55 and 65 miles per hour (mph). Arterials are designed to provide a high degree of mobility and generally serve longer vehicle trips to, from, and within urban areas. The arterial system interconnects major urban elements such as the Central Business District (CBD), industrial facilities, large urban and suburban commercial centers, major residential areas, and other key activity centers. Posted speed limits on arterial facilities generally range between 45 and 55 mph. Collectors are designed to provide a greater balance between mobility and land access within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The configuration of a collector facility is largely dependent upon the density, size, and type of abutting developments. Posted speed limits on collector facilities generally range between 235 and 45 mph. A brief description of the major streets in the study area is provided below. Additional streets are described in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. • Coffee Road – Coffee Road is a north-south six-lane divided arterial with a bike lane from Stockdale Highway to Hageman Road and a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It is a four-lane divided highway from Hageman Road to Olive Drive and a two-lane road north of Olive Drive. Coffee Road extends south of Stockdale Highway to District Boulevard as Gosford Road. Parking is generally not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. • Brimhall Road – Brimhall Road currently extends east from its intersection with Renfro Road to Coffee Road. It is an arterial west of Calloway Drive with a posted speed limit of 50 mph and a collector from Calloway Drive to Coffee Road. It is a four-lane divided highway from Coffee City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Road to Allen Road with a bike lane and a two-lane rural road west of Allen Road. Parking is generally not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. • El Toro Viejo Road – The City has planned a grade-separated crossing for the future El Toro Viejo Road at the BNSF Railroad, which would ultimately provide a north-south connection through the western portion of the Project Site. • Buena Vista Road – Buena Vista Road is a north-south arterial from Stockdale Highway to Taft Highway. It is a six-lane divided highway from Stockdale Highway to just south of Ming Road, beyond which it is a four-lane highway until White Lane. After White Lane it is a two-lane rural road. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Parking is generally not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. • Calloway Drive – Calloway Drive is designated a major north-south arterial. It crosses the Kern River and continues as Old River Road south of Stockdale Highway. It is a six-lane divided highway from Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway and a four-lane divided highway north of Brimhall Road. The posted speed limit varies from 45 mph to 55 mph. Parking is generally not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. Within the study area, Calloway Drive currently has bike lanes on both sides of the street between Norris Road and Hageman Road, and Brimhall Road and Stockdale Highway. • Fruitvale Avenue – Fruitvale Avenue extends from Golden State Highway to just south of Rosedale Highway and is designated an arterial north of Rosedale Highway. It is a four-lane divided highway along its entire stretch with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. • Gosford Road – Gosford Road is a north-south six-lane divided arterial with a bike lane from Stockdale Highway to north of Panama Lane and a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It is a two-lane undivided roadway south of Panama Lane. Gosford Road continues as Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway. Parking is generally not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. • Old River Road – Old River Road is a major north-south arterial with six divided lanes and a bike lane on both sides of the street to just south of White Lane. It continues as Calloway Drive north of Stockdale Highway. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. Parking is not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. • Rosedale Highway (SR 58) – SR 58 is a major east-west route extending from US 101 to the I-15. The segment of SR 58 from SR 43 to SR 99 is also known as Rosedale Highway. Rosedale Highway is a major east-west arterial providing direct access to SR 99 west of Oak Street with two travel lanes from Renfro Road to Allen Road, four travel lanes from Allen Road to Calloway Drive and six travel lanes from Calloway Drive to Coffee Road. The posted speed limit on Rosedale Highway in the study area varies between 40 to 50 mph. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • SR 99 – SR 99 is a major north-south freeway that extends from the I-5 to Sacramento. In the study area, SR 99 is a six-to-eight-lane freeway with access at Ming Avenue, Olive Drive, Rosedale Highway, Stockdale Highway and White Lane. • Stockdale Highway – Stockdale Highway is a designated east-west arterial that continues as Brundage Lane east of Oak Street. It is a two-lane road west of Renfro Road and a four-to-six lane divided highway with a bike lane east of Renfro Road. Parking is not allowed on either side of the street in the study area. The posted speed limit varies from 40 mph to 50 mph along its length in the study area. Stockdale Highway provides access to the SR 99 east of Real Road. • Truxtun Avenue – Truxtun Avenue is a designated east-west collector that extends east from Coffee Road through downtown Bakersfield. Along its length west of downtown, it is a four-lane road with a posted speed limit between 40 to 50 mph and parking is not allowed on either side of the street. Along its length through downtown, it has a posted speed limit of 25 mph and has parking restrictions on either side. Alternative Transportation Systems Bicycle and Pedestrian Coffee Road and Brimhall Road are both designated as a Class 2 bike lane on the Metropolitan Bakersfield Bikeway Master Plan. These facilities connect into other bikeways throughout the City including the Class 1 bike path located along the Kern River. Sidewalks are intermittent in the Project area. Transit Golden Empire Transit (GET) District provides bus transit service for the metropolitan Bakersfield area. GET provides 18 transit routes and operates every day of the week. Transit several is provided along several key corridors with the study area including, Stockdale Highway, Rosedale Highway, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road (north of the Project Site) Ming Avenue, New Stine Avenue, and California Avenue. Currently, no bus routes directly serve the Project area, with the nearest route located more than one mile from the site. Rail BNSF tracks run in a northwest-southeast direction, adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed Project site. There are 40 to 50 trains per day, comprised of BNSF freight and Amtrak passenger trains. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Along the BNSF tracks at 7th Standard Road, there are switching movements created by the Quality Distribution Center (QDC) business on the southeast quadrant of the crossing. The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned, future high-speed rail system for the state of California that would travel from San Diego to Sacramento, traversing the Central Valley and the City of Bakersfield. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is currently completing the future project’s planning and design phases. While no route through the City of Bakersfield has been selected, one proposed route would cross the southern portion of the Site. As currently planned, the train platform on this portion of the route would be approximately 60 feet wide and elevated about thirty feet above grade on pylons that are spaced roughly 100 feet apart. Airport Commercial air travel in the area is provided by Meadows Field Airport, which is owned by the County of Kern and serves more than 700,000 people in or near the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Meadows Field Airport is located approximately seven miles north of downtown Bakersfield, and approximately five miles northeast of the proposed Project site. The Bakersfield Municipal Airport, owned by the City, is located approximately seven miles southeast of the proposed Project site, about 3.5 miles south of downtown. It is a corporate airport that primarily serves general aviation small aircraft for destinations in southern California. It has two runways and, in 2002, accommodated approximately 110,000 flight operations. Study Intersections and Forecast Scenarios Project Study Intersections and Roadway and Freeway Segments This study examined 121 intersections (including 111 existing intersections and 10 future intersections) 87 street segments, and three freeway (future Westside Parkway) segments selected in consultation with the City of Bakersfield, in the vicinity of the Project site for each of the six scenarios described further below. The three future freeway segments that will run east-west south of the Project site were chosen between freeway access points within the study area. The analyzed intersections, street segments, and freeway segments are illustrated in Figures IV.C-1 and IV.C-2, Location of Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments, and IV.C-3, Westside Parking Segment Analysis -Location of Analyzed Westside Parkway Segments. The intersections, street segments, and freeway segments are listed below. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 1. Santa Fe Way/Allen Road & Hageman Road (all-way stop-controlled); 2. Allen Road & Hageman Road (two-way stop-controlled); 3. Old Farm Road & Hageman Road (all-way stop-controlled); 4. Jewetta Avenue & Hageman Road (all-way stop-controlled); 5. Verdugo Lane & Hageman Road; 6. Calloway Drive & Hageman Road; 7. Main Plaza Drive & Hageman Road; 8. Riverlakes Drive & Hageman Road; 9. Coffee Road & Hageman Road; 10. Patton Way & Hageman Road; 11. Fruitvale Avenue & Hageman Road; 12. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (two-way stop-controlled); 13. Calloway Drive & Noriega Road; 14. Calloway Drive & Olive Drive; 15. Coffee Road & Olive Drive; 16. Patton Way & Olive Drive; 17. Fruitvale Avenue & Olive Drive; 18. SR 99 SB Ramps/Landco Drive & Olive Drive (two-way stop-controlled); 19. State Road & Olive Drive; 20. Coffee Road & Norris Road (all-way stop-controlled); 21. Coffee Road & Snow Road (all-way stop-controlled); 22. Calloway Drive & Meacham Road; 23. Renfro Road & Rosedale Highway; 24. Jenkins Road & Rosedale Highway; 25. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway; 26. Old Farm Road & Rosedale Highway; 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway; 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway; 29. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway; 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway; 31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway; 33. Coffee Road & Downing Avenue; 34. Coffee Road & Riverlakes Drive/Meany Avenue; 35. Renfro Road & Brimhall Road (two-way stop-controlled); 36. Allen Road & Brimhall Road; 37. Allen Road & Westside Parkway WB Ramps (future intersection); 38. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (future intersection); 39. Allen Road & Stockdale Highway; 40. Renfro Road & Stockdale Highway; 41. Calloway Drive & Brimhall Road; 42. Calloway Drive & Westside Parkway WB Ramps (future intersection); 43. Calloway Drive & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (future intersection); Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections, Continued 1. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway; 2. Old River Road & Ming Avenue; 3. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp; 4. Coffee Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (future intersection); 5. 5. Coffee Road & Truxtun Avenue; 6. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway; 7. Gosford Road & Ming Avenue; 8. Main Plaza Drive & Meacham Road (all-way stop-controlled); 9. Main Plaza Drive & Granite Falls Drive (all-way stop-controlled); 10. Coffee Road & Granite Falls Drive; 11. Airport Drive & Olive Drive/Decatur Street; 12. Landco Drive & Hageman Road (future intersection); 13. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (two-way stop-controlled); 14. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway; 15. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway; 16. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway; 17. Oak Street & 24th Street/Rosedale Highway; 18. F Street & 24th Street; 19. H Street & 24th Street; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 20. Chester Avenue & 24th Street; 21. F Street & 23rd Street; 22. H Street & 23rd Street; 23. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street; 24. F Street & Truxtun Avenue; 25. H Street & Truxtun Avenue; 26. Chester Avenue & Truxtun Avenue; 27. Jenkins Road & Brimhall Road (all-way stop-controlled); 28. Old Farm Road & Brimhall Road; 29. Jewetta Avenue & Brimhall Road; 30. Verdugo Lane & Brimhall Road (two-way stop-controlled); 31. El Toro Viejo Road/Harvest Creek Drive & Brimhall Road; 32. Jewetta Avenue & Stockdale Highway; 33. El Rio Drive & Stockdale Highway; 34. Ashe Road & Stockdale Highway; 35. New Stine Road/California Avenue & Stockdale Highway; 36. Montclair Street & Stockdale Highway; 37. Stine Road & Stockdale Highway; 38. Real Road & Stockdale Highway; 39. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Stockdale Highway; 40. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane; 41. 41. Hughes Lane/A Street & Brundage Lane; 42. Chester Avenue & Brundage Lane; 43. Chester Avenue & 4th Street/Palm Street; 44. Chester Avenue & California Avenue; 45. H Street & California Avenue; 46. A Street & California Avenue; 47. Oak Street & California Avenue; 48. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue; 49. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/Real Road & California Avenue; 50. Easton Drive & California Avenue; 51. Marella Way & California Avenue; 52. California Avenue & Mohawk Street; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 53. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue; 54. Old River Road & Camino Media; 55. Gosford Road & Camino Media; 56. Allen Road & Ming Avenue (future intersection); 57. Buena Vista Road & Ming Avenue; 58. El Portal Drive & Ming Avenue; 59. Ashe Road & Ming Avenue; 60. New Stine Road & Ming Avenue; 61. Stine Road & Ming Avenue; 62. Real Road & Ming Avenue; 63. SR 99 NB Ramps & Ming Avenue; 64. Allen Road & Chamber Boulevard (future intersection); 65. Allen Road & White Lane (future intersection); 66. Buena Vista Road & White Lane; 67. Old River Road & White Oak Drive; 68. Old River Road & Ridge Oak Drive; 69. Old River Road & White Lane; 70. Gosford Road & Laurelglen Boulevard North; 71. Gosford Road & Laurelglen Boulevard South; 72. Gosford Road & White Lane; 73. Gosford Road & District Boulevard; 74. Gosford Road & Harris Road; 75. Gosford Road & Panama Lane; 76. Ashe Road & White Lane; 77. Stine Road & White Lane; and 78. Coffee Road & Project Driveway (future intersection constructed as part of the proposed Project). Street Segments 1. Olive Drive west of Calloway Drive; 2. Calloway Drive north of Olive Drive; 3. Olive Drive east of Calloway Drive; 4. Coffee Road north of Norris Road; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 5. Olive Drive east of Patton Way; 6. Olive Drive east of Fruitvale Avenue; 7. Olive Drive west of Airport Drive; 8. Hageman Road west of Santa Fe Way/Allen Road; 9. Hageman Road west of Jewetta Avenue; 10. Hageman Road west of Calloway Drive; 11. Calloway Drive north of Hageman Road; 12. Calloway Drive south of Hageman Road; 13. Hageman Road east of Main Plaza Drive; 14. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road; 15. Coffee Road south of Hageman Road; 16. Hageman Road east of Patton Way; 17. Mohawk Street south of Hageman Road; 18. Hageman Road east of Mohawk Street; 19. Rosedale Highway east of Renfro Road; 20. Rosedale Highway east of Allen Road; 21. Rosedale Highway west of Verdugo Lane; 22. Rosedale Highway west of Calloway Drive; 23. Calloway Drive north of Rosedale Highway; 24. Calloway Drive south of Rosedale Highway; 25. Rosedale Highway east of Calloway Drive; 26. Main Plaza Drive north of Rosedale Highway; 27. Rosedale Highway west of Coffee Road; 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway; 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway; 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road; 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street; 32. Mohawk Street south of Rosedale Highway; 33. 24th Street east of Oak Street; 34. 24th Street east of H Street; 35. 23rd Street east of H Street; 36. Brimhall Road east of Renfro Road; 37. Brimhall Road west of Jewetta Avenue; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 38. Brimhall Road west of Verdugo Lane; 39. Brimhall Road west of Calloway Drive; 40. Calloway Drive north of Brimhall Road; 41. Calloway Drive south of Brimhall Road; 42. Brimhall Road east of Calloway Drive; 43. Brimhall Road west of Coffee Road; 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road; 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road; 46. Truxtun Avenue west of Mohawk Street; 47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue; 48. Truxtun Avenue east of Mohawk Street; 49. Oak Street north of Truxtun Avenue; 50. Truxtun Avenue east of Oak Street; 51. Chester Avenue north of Truxtun Avenue; 52. California Avenue west of Real Road; 53. Oak Street south of California Avenue; 54. Chester Avenue south of California Avenue; 55. Stockdale Highway east of Renfro Road; 56. Allen Road south of Stockdale Highway; 57. Stockdale Highway east of Jewetta Avenue; 58. Stockdale Highway west of Calloway Drive/Old River Road; 59. Old River Road south of Stockdale Highway; 60. Stockdale Highway west of Coffee Road/Gosford Road; 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway; 62. Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway; 63. Stockdale Highway west of Ashe Road; 64. Stockdale Highway east of Ashe Road; 65. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway; 66. New Stine Road south of Stockdale Highway; 67. Stockdale Highway west of Stine Road; 68. Wible Road south of Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane; 69. Brundage Lane east of Oak Street/Wible Road; 70. Allen Road north of Ming Avenue; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 71. Allen Road south of Ming Avenue; 72. Ming Avenue west of Buena Vista Road; 73. Buena Vista Road north of Ming Avenue; 74. Buena Vista Road south of Ming Avenue; 75. Ming Avenue west of Old River Road; 76. Ming Avenue west of Gosford Road; 77. Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue; 78. Ming Avenue west of Ashe Road; 79. Ashe Road north of Ming Avenue; 80. Ashe Road south of Ming Avenue; 81. Ming Avenue west of New Stine Road; 82. New Stine Road south of Ming Avenue; 83. Ming Avenue west of Stine Road; 84. Allen Road north of White Lane; 85. Old River Road north of Ridge Oak Drive; 86. Gosford Road north of White Lane; and 87. Gosford Road south of White Lane. Freeway (future Westside Parkway) Segments 1. Westside Parkway between Allen Road & Calloway Drive 2. Westside Parkway between Calloway Drive & Coffee Road 3. Westside Parkway between Coffee Road & & Mohawk Street Figure IV.C-1 Location of Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. Figure IV.C-2 Location of Analyzed Intersections and Street Segments Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. Figure IV.C-3 Westside Parking Segment Analysis Location of Analyzed Westside Parkway Segments Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Analysis Scenarios The Project’s traffic study analyzed the potential Project-generated traffic impacts on the street system surrounding the Project site. Intersection traffic impacts for the Project were evaluated for typical weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods and street segment impacts were evaluated for the average daily traffic on a typical weekday. The following traffic scenarios are analyzed in the study: • Existing Conditions (Year 2009) -The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a basis for the assessment of future traffic conditions. The existing conditions analysis includes a description of key area streets and highways, traffic volumes, and current intersection and roadway operating conditions. • Future without Project Conditions (Year 2015) -This scenario projects the future traffic traffic growth and intersection operating conditions that are forecasted as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site by year 2015. This analysis provides the baseline conditions by which Opening Year Project impacts are evaluated. • Future with Project Conditions, Opening Year – Phase I (Year 2015) -This analysis identifies the potential incremental impacts of the Project on projected future traffic operating conditions by adding the Project-generated traffic forecasted for this year to the Future without Project (Year 2015) traffic forecasts. • Future without Project Conditions (Year 2035) -This scenario projects the future traffic growth and intersection operating conditions that could be expected as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site by year 2035. This analysis provides the baseline conditions by which Phase II and Phase III Project impacts are evaluated. • Future with Project Conditions, Project Buildout – Phases I & II (Year 2035) -This analysis identifies the potential incremental impacts of the Project on projected future traffic operating conditions by adding the Project-generated traffic to the Future without Project (Year 2035) traffic forecasts. This scenario assumes Phases I & II of the Project will be constructed at full buildout. • Future with Project Conditions, Project Buildout – Phases I, II & III (Year 2035) -This analysis identifies the potential incremental impacts of the Project on projected future traffic operating conditions by adding the Project-generated traffic to the Future without Project (Year 2035) forecasts. This scenario assumes that all three Phases (I, II, & III) of the Project will be constructed at full buildout. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Additionally, the following scenarios were analyzed for freeway (future Westside Parkway) segments in the vicinity of the Project: • Future without Project (year 2035) • Future with Project – Full Buildout Phases I & II (year 2035) • Future with Project – Full Buildout Phases I, II, & III (year 2035) A quantitative analysis of Future without Project Phase I (year 2015) conditions was not conducted as future traffic volume data for the year 2015 is not available, however a qualitative analysis was undertaken to estimate potential impacts. Level of Service Methodology Intersections In accordance with policies established by the City of Bakersfield and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the "Operational Analysis" method from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) was employed to perform the intersection LOS analysis for each of the signalized locations. The analysis included a number of adjustments to the default HCM methodology, as requested by the City: • loss time of nine or 12 seconds per cycle as a yellow and red time adjustment • signal cycle length adjustments to align with future planned cycle lengths • heavy-vehicle adjustments on arterials to account for truck traffic • saturation flow adjustments, reducing the hourly capacity of a lane The HCM operational method determines two key operating characteristics of signalized intersections. The first characteristic is the average stopped delay experienced per vehicle. The second is the volumeto-capacity (V/C) ratio at intersections, based on the amount of traffic traveling through the intersection, the travel lane configurations, and other factors affecting capacity. These characteristics are used to evaluate the operational effectiveness of each intersection, which is described generally in terms of LOS. Levels of service at the unsignalized intersections were evaluated using stop-controlled methodologies from the 2000 HCM. The Green-Time Priority analyses conducted at signalized intersections along Rosedale Highway also used the 2000 HCM operational methodology. Further adjustments were made to the signal timing for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 these analyses. The signal green-time along Rosedale Highway was coordinated and optimized between intersections to allow for maximum throughput for vehicles traveling east and west. These analyses also produced V/C ratios which were used to determine LOS. One result of the green-time priority is to reduce through time for interconnecting north-south streets. The proposal to adjust green-time on Rosedale Highway has not been approved. LOS categories range from excellent, nearly free-flow traffic at LOS A to overloaded, stop-and-go conditions at LOS F. LOS definitions are provided in Tables IV.C-1 and IV.C-2 for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The LOS definitions and ranges of delay shown in these tables represent average conditions for all vehicles at an intersection across an entire hour. The City of Bakersfield has designated LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS at intersections. Table IV.C-1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections (2000 Highway Capacity Manual Operations Method) Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Definition A ≤ 10.0 Excellent. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 Very Good. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 Good. Occasional drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D > 35.0 and ≤ 55.0 Fair. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E > 55.0 and ≤ 80.0 Poor. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 80.0 Failure. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-2 Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections (2000 Highway Capacity Manual Unsignalized Method) Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Street Segments LOS for arterial street segments is determined by calculating the V/C ratio based on the average daily traffic volumes and the street segment capacity. The Kern COG model calculates daily traffic volumes and capacities by summing the volumes and capacities for the different time periods in the day: morning peak period (7:00 a.m. – 8:59 a.m.), midday peak period (11:00 a.m. – 1:59 p.m.), afternoon peak period (3:00 p.m. – 5:59 p.m.), and off-peak period (rest of the hours). ADT volumes for the analyzed street segments for the Future without Project scenarios were taken from the Kern COG model outputs for the year 2015 and year 2035. Similar to peak hour traffic volumes, the Project daily traffic distribution and assignment was conducted. The Project-only daily traffic was added to the Future without Project traffic to develop Future with Project traffic volumes. The daily capacities calculated for arterial and collector street segments located in suburban, urban, and Central Business District (CBD) locations are summarized in Table IV.C-3. Peak Period Calculated Capacities for Arterial and Collector Street Segments. Table IV.C-3 Peak Period Calculated Capacities for Arterial and Collector Street Segments Peak Period Peak Period Factor Capacity, Arterials in Suburban Locations a Capacity, Arterials in Urban Locations a Capacity, Arterials in CBD Locations a Capacity, Collectors in Suburban Locations a AM Peak 1.786 2,036 1,768 1,473 1,143 Midday Peak 2.564 2,923 2,538 2,115 1,641 PM Peak 2.500 2,850 2,475 2,063 1,600 Off-Peak 6.250 7,125 6,188 5,156 4,000 Notes: a Capacity is in vehicles per lane for the identified time period. Source: Gibson, October 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Levels of service for arterial street segments are determined by calculating the V/C ratio based on the average daily traffic volumes and the street segment capacity. The Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual, Division Six, Standards for Traffic Engineering specifies the capacity on arterial streets to be 10,000 vehicles per day per lane and on collector streets as 7,500 vehicles per day per lane. These capacities were derived by the City and Kern COG using base peak hour saturation flow rates, historical K & D factors (K = percentage of Annual Average Daily Traffic [AADT] volume on a street segment during the peak hour, D = percentage of AADT in the peak direction during the peak hour), and effective green times. Consequently, the capacity is lower per lane for collectors, primarily due to less effective green time and also more side friction. Of the analyzed street segments, the segments of Main Plaza Drive north of Rosedale Highway and Brimhall Road between Coffee Road and Calloway Drive are collectors. All other analyzed segments are arterials. At the request of City staff, lanes added to street segments as a mitigation measure were assigned lower capacity than lanes in place prior to any Project mitigation. These additional lanes were specified to have a capacity of 7,500 vehicles per day per lane for an arterial rather than 10,000. The effect of this change is to reduce overall street segment capacity and decrease projected levels of service. Freeway (Westside Parkway) Segments Similar to intersections, operating conditions on freeways are also classified by LOS. LOS for freeways is based on the measured flow past a point on a “screenline” compared to the estimated capacity of that section of the freeway. Capacity is calculated by multiplying the lane capacity by the number of lanes in each segment. In accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) guidelines, the maximum lane capacity is assumed to be 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) for freeway mainline lanes and for High Occupancy Vehicle and auxiliary lanes. Recognizing the unique characteristics of this freeway section, the mainline maximum lane capacity was modified to reflect the number of trucks that might use the freeway and the peak hour factor of the facility. The peak hour factor is a measure of how evenly the traffic is spread out over the course of an hour. If all the traffic occurred during one 15 minute time period, the peak hour factor would be 0.25; whereas if all traffic was completely evenly spread over the entire hour the peak hour factor would be 1.00. Typically, the closer a freeway operates to its capacity, the higher the peak hour factor. For the purposes of this analysis, a peak hour factor of 0.92 was assumed, which is the standard value required when there is no specific empirical data on peak hour traffic available. Truck traffic was assumed to be 10 percent of the total traffic stream and a passenger car equivalency of 2.5 was used in the analysis (i.e., 1 heavy truck equals 2.5 passenger cars). Based on the adjustments for peak hour factor and truck percentage, the maximum capacity of a freeway lane on the Westside Parkway is projected to be 1,750 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 vehicles per lane per hour. The LOS definitions for freeway segments are presented in Table IV.C-4, Level of Service Definitions for Freeway Segments at 65 MPH. Table IV.C-4 Level of Service Definitions for Freeway Segments at 65 MPH Level of Service Maximum Volume/Capacity Ratio A 0.00 – 0.30 B 0.31 – 0.50 C 0.51 – 0.71 D 0.72 – 0.89 E 0.90 – 1.00 F > 1.0 Source: Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002. Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volume data and fieldwork for the 111 existing study intersections was collected in spring 2005 for the morning and evening peak periods for typical weekdays. Additional count data collected in 2006 though 2008 was available at several intersections. Based on an analysis of growth trends in the study area seen in the various various years of traffic count data, the counts from year 2005 through 2008 were grown to depict year 2009 conditions (Existing Conditions). Due to extensive widening of streets in and around the study area, fieldwork (intersection lane configurations and signal phasing) for all of the 111 existing analyzed intersections was conducted again in February 2009. This data is used as the basis for analyzing existing conditions. The existing traffic counts and weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections are presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections The LOS analysis for existing weekday morning and evening peak hours at each of the analyzed intersections and detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the City of Bakersfield analysis methodology, 84 of the 111 existing analyzed intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours on weekdays. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Intersections currently operating at LOS D or worse during at least one of the analyzed peak hours are shown in Table IV.C-5, Intersections Currently Operating at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours. Table IV.C-5 Intersections Currently Operating at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours No. Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 18. SR 99 southbound ramps/Landco Drive & Olive Drive F F 20. Coffee Road & Norris Road E F 21. Coffee Road & Snow Road E E 25. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway D E 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway D E 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway D D 32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway D D 39. Allen Road & Stockdale Highway D -48. Coffee Road & Truxtun Avenue E E 49. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway E E 50. Gosford Road & Ming Avenue D D 56. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway F F 58. SR 99 southbound ramps & Rosedale Highway -D 59. SR 99 northbound off-ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway D F 60. Oak Street & 24th Street/Rosedale Highway E D 73. Verdugo Lane & Brimhall Road D -77. Ashe Road & Stockdale Highway D D 78. New Stine Road/California Avenue & Stockdale Highway D E 81. Real Road & Stockdale Highway D E 83. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane D F 90. Oak Street & California Avenue -D 91. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue D F 92. SR 99 southbound off-ramp/Real Road & California Avenue -D 96. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue -F 97. Old River Road & Camino Media -D 103. New Stine Road & Ming Avenue -E 105. Real Road &Ming Avenue -D Source: Gibson, October 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Future Traffic Projections Traffic growth estimates were primarily derived from the regional transportation data provided by Kern COG in consultation with the City of Bakersfield Department of Transportation. The Kern COG is an association of city and county governments in the County of Kern responsible for regional transportation planning. The Transportation Planning Plus (TPPLUS) transportation model is the planning tool used by Kern COG to forecast regional travel demand and provides output runs for the year 2015 and the year 2035. These output runs were used in conjunction with existing traffic volumes to estimate Future without Project conditions. The future traffic levels predicted by the model take into account expected growth in traffic over existing conditions from three primary sources: (1) Ambient growth due to the effects of overall regional growth and development outside the study area; (2) Traffic generated by development projects located within, or in the vicinity of, the study area and incorporated in the model; and (3) Capacity enhancements and, in some cases, traffic shifts due to planned regional transportation improvements. The City and Caltrans are in the process of completing a study and plans for potential widening of Rosedale Highway. At the request of the City, traffic volumes along Rosedale Highway come from a concurrent study of the corridor using a modified version of the Kern COG model. These volumes are higher than those generated by the standard Kern COG model. Regional Transportation and Street System Improvements Several key roadway improvements in or near the study area are forecasted to be completed by 2015 and 2035 as part of the City’s regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) and the Kern COG’s Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). Improvements included in the RTIF program are shown in Figure IV.C-4, Regional Transportation Impact Fee Map. These improvements, whether the result of local or regional capital improvement programs or as mitigation for ongoing or entitled related projects, would result in capacity changes at various locations throughout the study area. These changes could result in changes to the existing traffic patterns in the study area and are reflected in the Kern COG model. It should be noted that the Rosedale Highway project has not received environmental clearance nor has it been approved. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thomas Roads Improvements • Westside Parkway – The Westside Parkway is a four-to eight-lane local freeway that is proposed to extend from the intersection of Stockdale Highway and Heath Road to just west of the SR 99 freeway. It includes more than eight miles of freeway with four interchanges, all of which are within the study area, and several bridges that cross roads, canals and the Kern River. The City of Bakersfield anticipates completion of construction by the year 2015 up to Mohawk Street. The Westside Parkway would have full access interchanges on Allen Road, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road and Mohawk Street, although it is likely that the full access interchange at Allen Road could be preceded by a temporary at-grade signalized intersection. This roadway improvement also would include the extension of Mohawk Street south from Rosedale Highway across the Kern River to Truxtun Avenue. The lane configurations at the Westside Parkway interchanges being analyzed in this study are based on the TIER 2 Environmental Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Report Westside Parkway (City of Bakersfield, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration, January 2007). The Westside Parkway is proposed to be extended from Mohawk Street to SR 58 by the year 2035. • Rosedale Highway – The City and Cal Trans propose to widen Rosedale Highway from SR 43 to SR 99. The expansion project will widen six miles of the existing two-lane road, between SR 43 and Allen Road, to four lanes with paved shoulders and a dirt median. The project will also widen six miles of the existing four-lane divided highway, between Allen Road and SR 99, to a six-lane divided highway with paved shoulders and a dirt median. Rosedale Highway would be signalized at four locations, including: Renfro Road, Old Farm Road, Mohawk Street and Landco Drive. The City also proposes signal modifications at four locations on Rosedale Highway: Allen Road, Calloway Drive, Fruitvale Avenue and Verdugo Lane. • West Beltway – The City proposes to construct 12 miles of a new north-south four-lane freeway from 7th Standard Road to SR 119 (Taft Highway) along the Rudd Road alignment. This freeway would include interchanges at 7th Standard Road, Kratzmeyer Road, Rosedale Highway, Brimhall Road, the Westside Parkway, Ming Avenue, White Lane, Panama Lane, McCutcheon Road, and Taft Highway. Kern COG anticipates completion of construction by the year 2016 for the segment of the West Beltway between Taft Highway and Rosedale Highway and by the year 2030 for the segment between Rosedale Highway and North Beltway. • Hageman Road – The City proposes to extend Hageman Road approximately one-half mile east to connect with SR 204/Golden State Avenue at SR 99. It would consist of a flyover roadway over SR 99. The project is currently under environmental review and is expected to begin construction in 2012. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 RTIF Improvements (Year 2015) • Allen Road – Allen Road would be extended from Stockdale Highway to south of Panama Lane with major arterial intersections in the study area at Ming Avenue and White Lane. The City proposes to widen the existing two-lane road to four lanes from north of Hageman Road to White Lane. A bridge over the Kern River and a canal bridge over the Kern River Canal would also be constructed as part of this roadway improvement. Allen Road is also proposed to be signalized at Chamber Road. • Brimhall Road – Brimhall Road is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from Renfro Road to Jenkins Road. Brimhall Road is also proposed to be signalized at Jenkins Road and Verdugo Lane. • Calloway Drive – Calloway Drive is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from north of Hageman Road and north of Rosedale Highway to to a six-lane cross-section. • Coffee Road/Gosford Road – Coffee Road is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from north of Snow Road to north of Olive Drive. Coffee Road is also proposed to be signalized at Snow Road. Gosford Road is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from south of Harris Road to south of Panama Lane. • Hageman Road – Hageman Road is proposed to be widened to a six-lane cross-section from Jenkins Road to Verdugo Lane. Hageman Road would be signalized at five locations, including: Santa Fe Way, Allen Road, Old Farm Road, Jewetta Avenue, and Landco Drive. • Jewetta Avenue – Jewetta Avenue is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section between Snow Road and Meacham Road. • Landco Road – Landco Drive is proposed to be extended from Olive Drive to Rosedale Highway just east of Mohawk Street. • Ming Avenue – Ming Avenue is proposed to be extended from Renfro Road to Allen Road with a four-lane cross-section. Ming Avenue is also proposed to be signalized at at Allen Road. • Mohawk Street – Mohawk Street is proposed to be extended from Hageman Road to Truxtun Avenue to provide a contiguous street with a bridge at the Kern River. • Panama Lane – Panama Lane is proposed to be widened to a two-lane cross-section from Allen Road to Buena Vista Road. • Snow Road – Snow Road is proposed to be widened to a contiguous six-lane cross-section from Heath Road to Fruitvale Avenue. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Stockdale Highway – Stockdale Highway is proposed to be widened to a contiguous six-lane cross-section from Coffee Road/Gosford Road to the SR 99 southbound off-ramp. • White Lane – White Lane is proposed to be extended from Allen Road to the West Beltway with a four-lane cross-section. White Lane is also proposed to be signalized at Allen Road. RTIF Improvements (Year 2035) • Allen Road – Allen Road would be widened to a six-lane cross-section from Rosedale Highway to north of Stockdale Highway. • Brimhall Road – Brimhall Road is proposed to be extended as a four-lane road west of Renfro Road. Brimhall Road is also proposed to be signalized at Renfro Road. • Calloway Drive – Calloway Drive is proposed to be widened to a six-lane cross-section from north of Rosedale Highway to north of Brimhall Road. • Coffee Road – Coffee Road is proposed to be signalized at Norris Road. • El Toro Viejo Road – El Toro Viejo Road is proposed to be extended from Rosedale Highway to Brimhall Road with a two-lane cross-section. • Fruitvale Avenue – Fruitvale Avenue is proposed to be widened to a six-lane cross-section from Hageman Road to Rosedale Highway. • Hageman Road – Hageman Road is proposed to be signalized at Mohawk Street. • Mohawk Street – Mohawk Street is proposed to be widened to a six-lane cross-section from Hageman Road to Truxtun Avenue. • Olive Drive – Olive Drive is proposed to be widened to a six-lane cross-section from west of Calloway Drive to Airport Drive. The City also proposes to expand the SR 99 interchange and the Beardsley Canal culvert at Olive Drive. • Renfro Road – Renfro Road is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from south of Rosedale Highway to north of Stockdale Highway with a canal culvert at the Kern River Canal. • Snow Road – Snow Road is proposed to be widened to a four-lane cross-section from Coffee Road to Fruitvale Avenue. The RTIF Improvements identified above would be funded by the RTIF collected by the City from development projects and are expected to be fully in place by the year 2015 and the year 2035. Developments are required to pay their fair share for improvements at the facilities listed in the RTIF and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 any additional mitigation if required. The Project’s fair share would be a fixed rate as established by the City for land uses in the General Plan Amendment (GPA). The City of Bakersfield has established different RTIF for the core area and the non-core area. The Project falls in the non-core area as defined by the City. The Project’s fair-share contribution would be calculated based on unit rates, listed in Table IV.C-6, Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) -Metro Phase IV Fee Per Unit (After First Year), as established by the City for land uses in the GPA. As shown in the table, the unit rates for residential units are established per dwelling unit and those for commercial uses are established per average daily trip. Table IV.C-6 Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Metro Phase IV Fee Per Unit (After First Year) Land Use Type Type No. Metro Metro Phase IV Fee Per Unit (Non-Core Area) Residential per Living Unit: Single Family, Detached Multi-Family 1 2 $ 13,595 $ 4,710 Non-Residential per ADT Trip: Heavy/Service Industrial Light Industrial Office Commercial < 100,000 sf 100,000 – 199,999 sf > 200,000 sf Retail Commercial < 10,000 sf 10,000 – 49,999 sf 50,000 – 99,999 sf 100,000 sf – 199,999 sf 200,000 sf – 299,999 sf 300,000 sf – 399,999 sf 400,000 sf – 499,999 sf 500,000 sf – 999,999 sf > 1,000,000 sf 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 $ 210 $ 210 $ 161 $ 184 $ 198 $ 88 $ 124 $ 188 $ 201 $ 243 $ 263 $ 263 $ 266 $ 266 Source: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Program, City of Bakersfield, July 2008. PROJECT SITE Source: City of Bakersfield & County of Kern, March 12, 2009 and Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., 2009. Figure IV.C-4 Regional Transportation Impact Fee Map City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Future without Project Condition -Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Opening Year 2015 Future Without Project The 2015 Future without Project traffic volumes were analyzed using the level of service methodology described previously to forecast peak hour levels of service at the analyzed intersections. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the City of Bakersfield LOS methodology, 83 of the 121 analyzed intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours under the 2015 Future without Project conditions. Intersections forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse during at least one of the analyzed peak hours are shown in Table IV.C-7, Future without Project (2015) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours. Table IV.C-7 Future without Project (2015) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours No. Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 9. Coffee Road & Hageman Road -D 12. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road F F 18. SR 99 SB Ramps/Landco Drive & Olive Drive F F 19. State Road & Olive Drive -E 20. Coffee Road & Norris Road F F 25. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway D D 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway D D 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway D D 37. Allen Road & Westside Parkway WB Ramps -D 39. Allen Road & Stockdale Highway D -43. Calloway Drive & Westside Parkway EB Ramps F D 44. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway D D 46. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp D D 49. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway D D 50. Gosford Road & Ming Avenue D -54. Airport Drive & Olive Drive/Decatur Street -D 55. Knudsen Drive & Hageman Road F F 56. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway D D 58. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway -F 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway -F 60. Oak Street & 24th Street/Rosedale Highway E D 68. H Street & Truxtun Avenue -D 78. New Stine Road/California Avenue & Stockdale Highway D D 81. Real Road & Stockdale Highway D F City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-7 Future without Project (2015) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours No. Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 83. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane -E 88. H Street & California Avenue -D 90. Oak Street & California Avenue -D 91. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue E F 92. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/Real Road & California Avenue -D 95. California Street & Mohawk Street -D 96. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue -E 97. Old River Road & Camino Media -D 103. New Stine Road & Ming Avenue -E 105. Real Road & Ming Avenue -D 106. SR 99 NB Ramps & Ming Avenue D D 108. Allen Road & White Lane D D 109. Buena Vista Road & White Lane -D 119. Ashe Road & White Lane -D Source: Gibson, October 2009. Year 2035 Future without Project The 2035 Future without Project traffic volumes were analyzed using the LOS methodology described previously to forecast base peak hour levels of service at the analyzed intersections. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the City of Bakersfield LOS methodology, 68 of the 121 analyzed intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours under the 2035 Future without Project conditions. Intersections forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse during at least one of the analyzed peak hours are shown in Table IV.C-8, Future without Project (2035) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-8 Future without Project (2035) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours No. Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 9. Coffee Road & Hageman Road -D 12. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road -F 18. SR 99 SB Ramps/Landco Drive & Olive Drive F F 19. State Road & Olive Drive -D 23. Renfro Road & Rosedale Highway D -25. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway D D 26. Old Farm Road & Rosedale Highway D 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway D E 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway D D 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway D D 37. Allen Road & Westside Parkway WB Ramps D E 38. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps F E 39. Allen Road & Stockdale Highway F F 43. Calloway Drive & Westside Parkway EB Ramps F E 44. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway E E 45. Old River Road & Ming Avenue D -46. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp E F 47. Coffee Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps E -48. Coffee Road & Truxtun Avenue F -49. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway E D 50. Gosford Avenue & Ming Avenue -D 54. Airport Drive & Olive Drive/Decatur -E 55. Knudsen Drive & Hageman Road D D 56. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway E F 58. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway D F 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway -D 60. Oak Street & 24th Street/Rosedale Highway D D 66. Chester Avenue & 23th Street -E 68. H Street & Truxtun Avenue D D 69. Chester Avenue & Truxtun Avenue D D 78. New Stine Road/California Avenue & Stockdale Highway D D 81. Real Road & Stockdale Highway D F 83. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane -D 90. Oak Street & California Avenue -D 91. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue F F 92. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp/Real Road & California Avenue D D 95. California Street & Mohawk Street -E 96. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue D D 97. Old River Road & Camino Media -E 98. Gosford Road & Camino Media -D 99. Allen Road & Ming Avenue D F 103. New Stine Road & Ming Avenue -D 104. Stine Road & Ming Avenue -D 105. Real Road & Ming Avenue -E 106. SR 99 NB Ramps & Ming Avenue F E 107. Allen Road & Chamber Boulevard -D 108. Allen Road & White Lane D D City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-8 Future without Project (2035) Intersections Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse During Peak Hours No. Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 109. Buena Vista Road & White Lane D E 112. Old River Road & White Lane D D 115. Gosford Road & White Lane -D 116. Gosford Road & District Boulevard D D 118. Gosford Road & Panama Lane -D 119. Ashe Road & White Lane D D Source: Gibson, October 2009. Future without Project Condition -Street Segments Opening Year 2015 Future without Project Using the Kern COG model output, 80 of the 87 analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under base conditions. Street segments forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse are shown in Table IV.C-9, Future without Project (2015) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse, below. Table IV.C-9 Future without Project (2015) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse No. Street Segment LOS 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road D 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street F 33. 24th Street east of Oak Street F 34. 24th Street east of H Street D 35. 23rd Street east of H Street E 49. Oak Street north of Truxtun Avenue D 65. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway D Source: Gibson, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Year 2035 Future without Project Using the Kern COG model output, 75 of the 87 analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under base conditions. Street segments forecasted to operate at LOS D or worse are shown in Table IV.C-10, Future without Project (2035) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse. Table IV.C-10 Future without Project (2035) Street Segments Forecasted to Operate at LOS D or Worse No. Street Segment LOS 18. Hageman Road east of Mohawk Street E 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway D 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway D 32. Mohawk Street south of Rosedale Highway D 33. 24th Street east of Oak Street F 34. 24th Street east of H Street F 35. 23rd Street east of H Street F 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road D 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road E 49. Oak Street north of Truxtun Avenue E 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway D 62. Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway D Source: Gibson, 2009. Future without Project Condition -Freeway (Westside Parkway) Segments Future without Project (Year 2035) Conditions The Future without Project traffic volumes for the year 2035 are based on traffic projections used in the planning of the future Westside Parkway. The Future without Project freeway segment operating conditions and traffic volumes for the morning and afternoon peak hours in the year 2035 are provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, in the year 2035, the projected traffic volumes without the Project would result in the freeway segments between Allen Road and Calloway Drive and between Coffee Road and Mohawk Street operating at LOS D or better conditions during both peak hours in both directions. The segment between Calloway Drive and Coffee Road would operate beyond its capacity (LOS F) eastbound in the morning peak hour and westbound in the afternoon peak hour (representing commuter traffic traveling to and from the downtown jobs and to/from the SR 99 corridor). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Future without Project (Year 2015) Conditions Although no Future without Project (year 2015) traffic volumes were provided by the City for the Westside Parkway, a qualitative analysis of the potential freeway impacts due to Project Phase I (year 2015) was conducted. In year 2015, it is expected that the Future without Project traffic volumes will be significantly less than those in year 2035, due to expected ambient traffic growth in the region from 2015 to 2035. Extrapolating from 2035 projected volumes, therefore, it can be expected that 2015 projected volumes on the Westside Parkway will be 65 percent of the 2035 volumes. Additionally, Project traffic generated by Phase I is significantly less than that of Project Phases II and III and since the Westside Parkway will not extend to SR 58 by 2015 a lesser percentage of Project traffic will use the Westside Parkway to access the Project site. As a result of the 65 percent reduction in volumes, none of the analyzed freeway segments (i.e, Allen Road to Calloway Drive, Calloway Drive to Coffee Road, and Coffee Road to Mohawk Street) would operate at less than an LOS C. Regulatory Framework Traffic analysis in the State of California is guided by policies and standards set at the state level by Caltrans and by local jurisdictions. Transportation policies outlined in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan that may apply to the proposed Project are addressed in the impacts section below, where appropriate. An analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the City’s MBGP is provided in Table IV.C-24, Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to transportation/traffic if it were to result in one or more of the following: (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 the number of vehicle trips, the V/C ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); (b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the City’s LOS standard for designated roads or highways; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); (e) Result in inadequate emergency access; (f) Result in inadequate parking capacity; or (g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). As concluded in the Initial Study, provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR, the Project would not result in impacts to air traffic patterns, and therefore, no further analysis of this issue is included in this EIR. All of the other issues addressed by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines are analyzed below under separate subheadings. Project The Project is proposed to be developed in three phases. For the purposes of the traffic analysis, Phase I was analyzed at the year 2015 and Phases II and III were analyzed at the year 2035. Table IV.C-11, Preliminary Building Program, summarizes the preliminary building program for the Project. The traffic projections for the Project were developed using the following three steps: estimating the trip generation of the Project, determining trip distribution, and assigning the Project traffic to the future roadway system. Table IV.C-11 Preliminary Building Program Zone Land Use Phase I (Year 2015) Phase II (Year 2035) Phase III (Year 2035) Total C-2 North of Railroad a General Office 200,000 0 200,000 400,000 C-C Core Area a General Office 0 200,000 0 200,000 C-2 South of Railroad a Shopping Center 0 400,000 0 400,000 C-C Core Area a Shopping Center & Theater 800,000 200,000 0 1,000,000 R-1 East of Windsong Street b Single Family Residential 0 0 80 80 R-2 West of El Toro Viejo Road b Multi-Family Residential 0 0 345 345 Total Commercial (square feet) 1,000,000 800,000 200,000 2,000,000 Total Residential (dwelling units) 0 0 425 425 a Development Unit = Square Feet (sf). b Development Unit = Dwelling Unit (du). Source: Gibson 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Trip Generation Trip Generation, 8th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2008), and Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (San Diego Association of Governments, 2002) were used to estimate the number of trips generated by the proposed land uses. A pass-by trip credit of 15 percent was applied to the retail portion of the development. This is the level of pass-by credit allowed by the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual, Division Six, Standards for Traffic Engineering (City of Bakersfield, April 2005). Pass-by trips are trips that are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent road that offers direct access to the generator. Studies of cinemas in retail centers indicate that approximately 30 to 33 percent of cinema patrons either shopped in the center or ate a meal before or after the show on the same trip. The two most relevant studies: Are Megaplex Cinemas Compatible with Retail Facilities? (Shopping Center Business, July 1997) and Trip Generation: One Developer’s Experience (ITE Journal, October 1993) have been included in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. The traffic study assumes that 25 percent of patrons visiting the cinema would also be patrons of the shopping center development within the Project (internal trip-capture credit). This is a conservative assumption in light of the 30-33 percent national average internal capture rates described in the two documents listed above. The trip generation rates used for the Project are shown in Table IV.C-12, Trip Generation Rates. Table IV.C-12 Trip Generation Rates Proposed Land Use ITE Land Use Size Variable Daily Rate A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Residential: Single-Family Detached (Low Density) Single Family Townhouse (Medium/High Density) 210 230 DU DU 9.57 5.86 25% 17% 75% 83% 0.75 0.44 63% 67% 37% 33% 1.01 0.52 Commercial: Office Retail Theater 710 820 [a] ksf [b] ksf seats 11.01 [c] 1.80 88% 61% -12% 39% -1.55 [c] -17% 49% 60% 83% 51% 40% 1.49 [c] 0.14 Notes: [a] Trip generation rate from Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002. [b] 1,000 square feet = ksf. [c] Trip generation rate based on the best-fit curve formula listed in the ITE for the identified land use. Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Proposed Project Opening Year (Phase I – Year 2015) Under opening year conditions (2015), on a typical weekday, the Project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 27,267 daily trips, including approximately 733 morning peak hour trips and 2,670 afternoon peak hour trips. These trip generation estimates are outlined in Table IV.C-13, Trip Generation Estimates – Opening Year (Phase I – Year 2015). Table IV.C-13 Trip Generation Estimates – Opening Year (Phase I – Year 2015) Proposed Land Use ITE Land Use Size Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Commercial: Zone C-2, north of RR Zone C-C, core area[a] Less Pass-by (15%) Zone C-C, core area[b] Less Internal Capture (25%) 710 820 theater 200 ksf 730 ksf 3,000 st (70 ksf) 2,202 24,723 (3,708) 5,400 (1,350) 273 304 (46) 0 (0) 37 194 (29) 0 (0) 310 498 (75) 0 (0) 51 1,181 (177) 259 (65) 247 1,229 (184) 173 (43) 298 2,410 (362) 432 (108) Total 27,267 531 202 733 1,249 1,422 2,670 Notes: 1,000 square feet = ksf, dwelling unit =du, seats = st [a] Assumes a pass-by trip credit of 15%. This is the level of credit allowed by the City of Bakersfield for retail developments. Trip generation rate based on the best-fit curve formula listed in the ITE for the identified land use. [b] Trip generation rate from Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002. According to studies conducted at other combined mall retail/cinema uses throughout the country, roughly one-third of all cinema trips will also visit retail uses during their stay. Source: Gibson 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phases I & II – Year 2035 Under Phase I & II conditions in 2035, on a typical weekday, the Project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 39,489 daily trips, including approximately 1,222 morning peak hour trips and 3,981 afternoon peak hour trips for Phases I & II combined development. Phase II of the Project by itself is estimated to generate a net total of approximately 12,222 daily trips on a typical weekday, including approximately 489 morning peak hour trips and 1,311 afternoon peak hour trips. These trip generation estimates are outlined in Table IV.C-14, Trip Generation Estimates – Phases I & II – Year 2035. Table IV.C-14 Trip Generation Estimates – Phases I & II – Year 2035 Proposed Land Use ITE Land Use Size Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Commercial: Zone C-2, north of RR Zone C-C, core area Zones C-C, core area[a] [b] [c] Less Internal Capture Less Pass-by (15%) Zones C-2, south of RR[a][b][c] Less Internal Capture Less Pass-by (15%) Zones C-C, core area[d] [e] Less Internal Capture (25%) 710 710 820 820 theater 200 ksf 200 ksf 930 ksf 400 ksf 3,000 seats (70 ksf) 2,202 2,202 28,937 (6,396) (3,381) 16,722 (2,751) (2,096) 5,400 (1,350) 273 273 350 (92) (39) 213 (39) (26) 0 (0) 37 37 224 (58) (25) 136 (25) (17) 0 (0) 310 310 574 (150) (64) 349 (64) (43) 0 (0) 51 51 1,389 (289) (165) 789 (124) (100) 259 (65) 247 247 1,445 (300) (172) 821 (129) (104) 173 (43) 298 298 2,834 (589) (337) 1,610 (253) (204) 432 (108) Total – Phases I & II 39,489 913 309 1,222 1,796 2,185 3,981 Net Total – Phase II 12,222 382 107 489 547 763 1,311 Notes: [a] Assumes a pass-by trip credit of 15%. This is the level of credit allowed by the City of Bakersfield for retail developments. [b] Trip generation rate based on the best-fit curve formula listed in the ITE for the identified land use. [c] Trip generation calculated for 1,330 ksf of Shopping Center land use based on the best-fit curve formula listed in ITE and then proportioned for Zones C-C and C-2. [d] Trip generation rate from Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002. [e] According to studies conducted at other combined mall retail/cinema uses throughout the country, roughly one-third of all cinema trips will also visit retail uses during their stay. Source: Gibson 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Full Buildout (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035) Under full buildout conditions in 2035, on a typical weekday, the Project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 44,461 daily trips, including approximately 1,744 morning peak hour trips and 4,539 afternoon peak hour trips for Phases I, II & III combined development. Phase III of the Project by itself is estimated to generate a net total of approximately 4,972 daily trips on a typical weekday, including approximately 522 morning peak hour trips and 558 afternoon peak hour trips. These trip generation estimates are outlined in Table IV.C-15, Trip Generation Estimates – Full Buildout (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035). Table IV.C-15 Trip Generation Estimates – Full Buildout (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035) Proposed Land Use ITE Land Use Size Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Residential: Single Family Detached Single-Family Townhouse 210 230 80 DU 345 DU 766 2,004 15 26 45 126 60 152 51 120 30 59 81 179 Commercial: Zone C-2, north of RR Zone C-C, core area Zones C-C, core area[a] [b] [c] Less Internal Capture Less Pass-by (15%) Zones C-2, south of RR[a][b][c] Less Internal Capture Less Pass-by (15%) Zones C-C, core area[d] [e] Less 25% Internal Capture 710 710 820 820 theater 400 ksf 200 ksf 930 ksf 400 ksf 3,000 seats (70 ksf) 4,404 2,202 28,937 (6,396) (3,381) 16,722 (2,751) (2,096) 5,400 (1,350) 546 273 350 (92) (39) 213 (39) (26) 0 (0) 74 37 224 (58) (25) 136 (25) (17) 0 (0) 620 310 574 (150) (64) 349 (64) (43) 0 (0) 101 51 1,389 (289) (165) 789 (124) (100) 259 (65) 495 247 1,445 (300) (172) 821 (129) (104) 173 (43) 596 298 2,834 (589) (337) 1,610 (253) (204) 432 (108) Total – Phases I, II & III 44,461 1,227 517 1,744 2,017 2,522 4,539 Net Total – Phase III 4,972 314 208 522 221 337 558 Notes: [a] Assumes a pass-by trip credit of 15%. This is the level of credit allowed by the City of Bakersfield for retail developments. [b] Trip generation rate based on the best-fit curve formula listed in the ITE for the identified land use. [c] Trip generation calculated for 1,330 ksf of Shopping Center land use based on the best-fit curve formula listed in ITE and then proportioned for Zones C-C and C-2. [d] Trip generation rate from Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002. [e] According to studies conducted at other combined Mall retail/cinema uses throughout the country, roughly one-third of all cinema trips will also visit retail uses during their stay. Source: Gibson, 2009. Project Traffic Distribution The general distribution pattern of the Project’s traffic was developed based on a select zone analysis performed by the Kern COG traffic model. As discussed earlier, several key roadway improvements in the study area are expected to be in place by the year 2015. These improvements are included in the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 traffic model, the result of which is reflected in changes to the existing traffic patterns in the study area. The general distribution pattern used for the Project’s traffic analysis is illustrated in Figure IV.C-5, Project Trip Distribution. Project Traffic Assignment The assignment of Project traffic to the street network was based on the Kern COG traffic model data, with certain adjustments being made based on the proximity of existing and future developments that might have an influence on travel patterns for the Project. The Project trip assignments are presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR for all phases. Future with Project Traffic Projections The Project-generated traffic volumes were then added to the Future without Project traffic projections to yield the Future with Project traffic forecasts. The Future with Project traffic volumes are shown in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. These volumes are the basis for the analysis of the Project’s traffic-related intersection impacts as discussed below. All RTIF improvements, as noted above, were included in the analysis under the Future without Project scenarios and the corresponding intersection lane configurations are shown in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Figure IV.C-5 Project Trip Distribution Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-46 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-47 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Intersection Impact Analysis As noted above in the introduction to this Section, at the request of the City, the intersection impact analysis presented below, which includes both signalized and unsignalized intersections, was conducted using two different traffic impact criteria: City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Impact Criteria and Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria. In addition to the two full analyses using two criteria, two alternative analyses were conducted (one with each set of impact criteria) for 14 intersections along Rosedale Highway using an alternative methodology that provides signal green-time priority to east-west traffic along the Rosedale corridor. The remaining 107 intersections were not analyzed using this alternative green-time priority methodology. It should be noted that the green-time priority to Rosedale has not been approved. An analysis under the City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Impact Criteria is included in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR and can be summarized as: • Intersection Impact Analysis #1: City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Impact Criteria • Green-Time Priority Analysis #1 (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Impact Criteria The analysis discussed below, which was completed under the City’s Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria can be summarized as: • Intersection Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria • Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria Intersection Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria This analysis was undertaken to determine potential significant intersection impacts using the City’s “Five-Second Delay” criteria. Under this criteria two standards are defined for determining whether the Project traffic has a significant traffic impact and require mitigation if: 1. The addition of project traffic causes the LOS at an intersection to drop below C (i.e., to LOS D, E, or F); or 2. The intersection already operates at LOS D or worse and the intersection delay increases by more than five seconds due to Project traffic. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-48 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Intersection Analysis #2: Future with Project (Phase I – Year 2015) The 2015 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections and were compared to 2015 Future without Project conditions to identify significant impacts resulting from Project-generated traffic. The results of these analyses are summarized below and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at 109 of the analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following 12 intersections without mitigation in place, as shown in Table IV.C-16, Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-16 Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 12.[a] Mohawk Street & Hageman Road A.M. P.M. 20.[a] Coffee Road & Norris Road A.M. P.M. 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway A.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 46. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp P.M. 56.[a] Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway P.M. 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 81. Real Road & Stockdale Highway A.M. P.M. 83. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane P.M. 91. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue P.M. 95. California Avenue & Mohawk Street P.M. 96. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue P.M. Notes: [a] Intersection is proposed to be signalized under RTIF. Source: Gibson, 2009. The proposed improvement measures for the the significantly impacted intersections under Opening Year – Phase I conditions are: C-1. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-49 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-2. Coffee Road & Norris Road (20): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-3. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared southbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-4. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one rightturn lane in the westbound and northbound directions. C-5. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound through lane to provide four through lanes and one right-turn lane and widening the westbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Install split signal phasing in the east/west direction. C-6. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-7. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): Increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane. C-8. Real Road & Stockdale Highway (81): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-9. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane (83): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-10. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue (91): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound rightturn lane to provide two left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-11. California Avenue & Mohawk Street (95): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-50 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-12. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue (96): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. The 2015 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations listed. The results of these analyses and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix F, Additional Intersection Impact Analysis Using Modified Significant Impact Criteria, of the Traffic Study, which is included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the mitigation measures listed fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I intersection impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. Intersection Analysis #2: Full Buildout (Phases I & II – Year 2035) The 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections and were compared to 2035 Future without Project conditions to identify the impacts resulting from Project-generated traffic. The results of these analyses are summarized below and detailed LOS calculations are presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at 108 of the analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following 13 intersections without mitigation measures as shown in Table IV.C-17, Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-17 Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 9. Coffee Road & Hageman Road P.M. 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway P.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 38. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps P.M. 44. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway P.M. 46. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp A.M. P.M. 49. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway A.M. P.M. 58. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway P.M. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-51 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-17 Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 63. Chester Avenue & 24th Street P.M. 66. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street P.M. Source: Gibson, 2009. The Future with Project (Phases I & II – year 2035) traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations identified below under the Mitigation Measures subheading for Phase I. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are provided specifically in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project would continue to result in a significant traffic impact during at least one of the analyzed peak hours at ten of the 121 study intersections with Phase I mitigation measures in place. The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted intersections under Phase II conditions are: C-13. Coffee Road & Hageman Road (9): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound leftturn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-14. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound and southbound shared through/right-turn lanes into separate through lanes and rightturn lanes to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction and two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction. C-15. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-16. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (38): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-52 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-17. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway (44): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-18. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the northbound direction. C-19. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway (49): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared northbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-20. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-21. Chester Avenue & 24th Street (63): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared westbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one leftturn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-22. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one leftturn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. The 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations listed for Phase I and Phase II. The results of these analyses and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the mitigation measures listed fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I & Phase II (year 2035) intersection impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-53 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Intersection Analysis #2: Full Buildout (Phases I, II, & III – Year 2035) The 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes (Phases I, II, & III) were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections and were compared to 2035 Future without Project conditions to identify the impacts resulting from Project-generated traffic. The results of these analyses are summarized below and detailed LOS calculations are presented specifically in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact significance criteria, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at 105 of the analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following 16 intersections without mitigation measures as shown in Table IV.C-18, Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-18 Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 9. Coffee Road & Hageman Road P.M. 12. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road P.M. 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway P.M. 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway P.M. 29. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 38. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps A.M. P.M. 44. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway P.M. 46. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp A.M. P.M. 49. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway A.M. P.M. 56. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 58. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway P.M. 63. Chester Avenue & 24th Street P.M. 66. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street P.M. 98. Gosford Street & Camino Media P.M. Source: Gibson, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-54 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III – year 2035) traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations identified above under the Mitigation Measures subheading for Phase I, Phase II and Phase III. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are provided specifically in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project would continue to result in a significant traffic impact during at least one of the analyzed peak hours at five of the 121 study intersections with Phases I & II mitigation measures in place. The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted intersection under Phase III conditions are: C-23. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the westbound direction. C-24. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): Increase intersection capacity by converting the westbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-25. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-26. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-27. Gosford Street & Camino Media (98): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. The 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations listed for Phase I, II, & III. The results of these analyses and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the mitigation measures listed fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I, II, & III (year 2035) intersection impacts to below the significance criteria set forth by the Five-Second Delay criteria. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-55 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria As previously described, the City requested an additional analysis providing for increased green-time1 along Rosedale Highway. The analysis is described in detail in Appendix G, Additional Intersection Impact Analysis with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Using Adopted City Impact Criteria and Modified Significant Impact Criteria of the Traffic Study, which is as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. This alternative traffic impact analysis utilizes a different traffic analysis tool known as Synchro which gives signal green-time priority specifically to traffic traveling east and west on Rosedale Highway. This methodology favors the flow of traffic along Rosedale Highway over the following 14 north-south streets intersecting intersecting with Rosedale Highway: 23. Renfro Road 24. Jenkins Road 25. Allen Road 26. Old Farm Road 27. Verdugo Lane 28. Calloway Drive 29. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road 30. Coffee Road 31. Patton Way 32. Fruitvale Avenue 56. Mohawk Street 57. Landco Drive 58. SR-99 Southbound Ramps 1 Green-time refers to the time within a traffic signal light-cycle in which an approach has a green light indication. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-56 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 59. SR-99 Northbound Off-ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard The Future without Project (year 2015 and year 2035) traffic volumes used in this analysis have been adopted from the current Rosedale Highway project, a Caltrans facility, as discussed above. Projectgenerated traffic volumes and distributions were not changed from those described above. This analysis was conducted using the Five-Second Delay impact criteria described above. Green-Time Priority Analysis #2: Future with Project (Phase I – Year 2015) Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact criteria previously described with the Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at six of the 14 analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following eight intersections without mitigation in place, as shown in Table IV.C-19, Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-19 Future with Project (Phase I -2015) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 25. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 28. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway P.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway P.M. 56.[a] Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway P.M. 58. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway P.M. 59. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway P.M. Notes: [a] Intersection is proposed to be signalized under RTIF. Source: Gibson, 2009. The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted intersections under Opening Year – Phase I conditions are: C-28. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway (25): Improve intersection operation by installing overlapping right-turn signal phasing in all four directions. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-57 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-29. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway (31): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in both directions. C-32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-33. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-34. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide four through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-35. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the the westbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. The 2015 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations listed. The results of these analyses and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix G, Additional Intersection Impact Analysis with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Using Adopted City Impact Criteria and Modified Significant Impact Criteria, of the Traffic Study, which is included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the mitigation measures listed fully mitigate the Project’s Phase I intersection impacts to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-58 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway. Green-Time Priority Analysis #2: Full Buildout (Phases I & II – Year 2035) Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact criteria previously described with the Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at five of the 14 analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following nine intersections without mitigation in place, as shown in Table IV.C-20, Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-20 Future with Project (Phases I & II -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway P.M. 29. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway P.M. 32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 56. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway P.M. 57. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway P.M. 58. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway P.M. 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. Notes: [a] Intersection is proposed to be signalized under RTIF. Source: Gibson, 2009. The Future with Project (Phases I & II – year 2035) traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the Phase I mitigations measures in place. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are provided specifically in Appendix G, Intersection Level of Service Worksheets, of the Traffic Study, which is included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project would continue to result in a significant traffic impact during at least one of the analyzed peak hours at nine of the 14 study intersections with Phase I mitigation measures in place. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-59 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted intersections under Phase II conditions are: C-36. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-37. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-38. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-39. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-40. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. C-41. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway (57): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-42. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the eastbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide three through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the eastbound direction. The 2035 Future with Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the mitigations listed. The results of these analyses and detailed LOS calculations are specifically presented in Appendix G, Additional Intersection Impact Analysis with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Using Adopted City Impact Criteria and Modified Significant Impact Criteria, of the Traffic Study, which is included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-60 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As shown, the mitigation measures listed partially mitigate the Project’s Phase II intersection impacts to below the Five-Second Delay significance criteria when considering Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact on the following two intersections during afternoon peak hours: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway Green-Time Priority Analysis #2: Full Buildout (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035) Using the Five-Second Delay traffic impact criteria previously described with the Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway, the results indicate that the Project would have a less than significant impact at five of the 14 analyzed intersections and a significant impact at the following nine intersections without mitigation in place, as shown in in Table IV.C-21, Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation. Table IV.C-21 Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III -2035) Intersections Forecasted to Have Significant Impacts with Green-Time Priority for Rosedale Highway Under Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria During Peak Hours Without Mitigation No. Intersection Peak Hour 27. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway P.M. 29. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway P.M. 30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 56.[a] Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. 57. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway P.M. 58. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway P.M. 59. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway A.M. P.M. Notes: [a] Intersection is proposed to be signalized under RTIF. Source: Gibson, 2009. The Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III – year 2035) traffic volumes were analyzed to determine future operating conditions at the analyzed intersections with the Phase I and Phase II mitigation City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-61 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 measures in place. The results of this analysis and detailed LOS calculations are provided specifically in Appendix G, Intersection Level of Service Worksheets, of the Traffic Study, which is included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project would continue to result in a less than significant traffic impact at twelve of the 14 studied intersections with Phases I & II mitigation measures in place. The two remaining intersections are: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway No further mitigation measure could be identified at these two locations. Thus, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain at these locations even after Phases I & II mitigation measures are implemented under the Five-Second Delay criteria when considering the Green-Time Priority on Rosedale Highway. Street Segment Analysis The arterial street segments, much like the intersections, were analyzed under existing, future year, and future year plus Project conditions. According to the City’s Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual, Division Six, Standards for Traffic Engineering (City of Bakersfield, April 2005), the City has two adopted standards for determining whether Project traffic has a significant impact on an arterial street segment and mitigation is required. A significant project-related impact would require mitigation if: 1. The addition of Project traffic causes the LOS of an arterial street to drop below LOS C. 2. If a street operates below LOS C prior to the addition of Project traffic; however, mitigation is required only as necessary to maintain the LOS under the corresponding without Project conditions for each analysis year (i.e., 2015 and 2035). The traffic volumes under Future with Project conditions are summarized below with the detailed analysis presented in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. Street Segment Analysis: Future with Project (Phase I – Year 2015) As shown in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR, 75 of the 87 analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under Future with Project conditions. Using the City of Bakersfield’s criteria for significant impacts on street segments, the Project’s traffic in opening year conditions (year 2015) would result in a significant impact at the following seven analyzed street segments prior to the implementation of mitigation: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-62 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road 47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway 65. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted street segments under Phase I conditions are: C-43. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway (29): Add one lane in each direction from Rosedale Highway to the BNSF railroad overpass. C-44. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (30): Add one lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way. C-45. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (44): Add one lane in each direction from the BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road. C-46. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road (45): Add one lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to the Westside Parkway. C-47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (47): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue. C-48. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (61): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway. C-549. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (65): Add one lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway. The Mitigation Measures described would mitigate the identified impacts, but would exceed the City’s design standards. Additionally, widening of Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (Street Segment #30) would require the removal of a number of businesses lining the highway. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue along the impacted segments would require the removal of many multi City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-63 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 story office and residential buildings that line the two street segments and would eliminate landscaping along the sidewalks. Widening of Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #61) would require the replacement or widening of a bridge over a canal as well as the removal of several retail buildings on the west side of Coffee Road. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate the impacts at the following four locations. Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria." 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway 65. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway Highway However, the impacts Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (Street Segment #47) and on California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #65) are temporary in nature. These locations will not be impacted upon completion of the Westside Parkway, which is not part of the Project. Street Segment Analysis: Future with Project (Phases I & II – Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), Project traffic would result in a significant impact at the following nine analyzed segments prior to the implementation of mitigation: 14. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway 77. Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-64 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As shown in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR, 71 of the 87 analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under Future with Project conditions. With all of the identified the Project Phase I street segment mitigation measures in place, the Project impacts at the following four street segments would be decreased to a less than significant level: 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway The Project Phases I & II traffic would result in a significant impact at five of the analyzed street segments with Phase I mitigations in place: 14. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road 77. Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue The proposed improvement measures for the significantly impacted street segments under Phase II conditions are: C-50. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (14): Add one lane in each direction from Olive Road to Hageman Road. C-651. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway (28): Add one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway. C-52. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street (31): Add one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street. C-53. Gosford Avenue south of Ming Avenue (77): Add one lane in each direction Ming Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-65 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The project proposes to widen Coffee Road from north of Rosedale Highway to the Westside Parkway by one lane in each direction, providing an eight-lane roadway in the vicinity of the Project (with the exception of the previously discussed grade separation over the BNSF railroad). This widening will further mitigate the significant impact at Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway (Street Segment #28). Based on the information provided by the City and Kern COG, four of the remaining five impacted street segments will be built out to the City’s maximum design standards for arterials of six lanes by 2035, and a sixth segment, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), would exceed the maximum design standards. Additionally, widening of Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) may not be feasible due to the number of private residences along the east side of the street and utility towers lining the west side of the street immediately beyond the gutter. Widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the area would be significant to residents. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate the impacts at these two locations (i.e., Street Segments #14 and #77). Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. Based on current information, the Kern COG model assumes that Rosedale Highway will have been widened to a six-lane highway according to Caltrans standards. It should be noted that the segments along Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14), Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (Street Segment #30), and Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) are projected to operate at LOS D. Street Segment Analysis: Future with Project (Phases I, II & III – Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II, & III), Project traffic would result in a significant impact at the following ten analyzed segments: 14. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-66 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway 62. Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway 77. Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue The Project is not expected to result in a significant impact at 77 of the 87 analyzed street segments. As shown in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR, 71 of the 87 analyzed street segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better under Future with Project conditions. With all of the identified the Project Phases I & II street segment mitigation measures in place, the Project impacts at eight of the above-mentioned street segments would be decreased to a less than significant level: 14. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road 28. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway 29. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway 30. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road 31. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street 45. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road 61. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway 77. Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue The Project Phases I, II, & III traffic would thus result in a significant impact at two of the analyzed street segments with Phase I & II mitigations in place: 44. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road 62. Gosford Road south of Stockdale Highway The segment on Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44) remains impacted even after the addition of a fourth lane in each direction due to the reduced capacity assigned to the additional lanes according to the City’s specifications. If the additional lanes were assigned the same capacity as the other six lanes (10,000 vehicles per day per lane), no significant impact would remain. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-67 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The proposed improvement measure for the significantly impacted street segments under Phase III conditions is: C-54. Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway (62): Add one lane in each direction. Based on the information provided by the City and Kern COG, the two remaining impacted street segments (Street Segments #44 and #62) will be built to or beyond the City’s maximum design standards for arterials of six lanes by 2035. Additionally, widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the street would be significant to residents. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate this impact. Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. It should be noted that this segment is projected to operate at LOS D. Mitigation Measures identified mitigate one of the Project’s Phase III street segment impacts to below the level of significance set forth by the City of Bakersfield. However, this improvement along Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) may not be feasible due to the aesthetic and landscaping impacts that would result in a residential area. As such, identified improvements may not be feasible to fully mitigate this impact. Where improvements are determined to be infeasible an in-lieu contribution would be imposed. If improvements are not made, impacts to these segments would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City's criteria. One additional location, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), cannot be mitigated even by exceeding the City’s standard design using the reduced capacity for added lanes specified by the City. However, if the additional lane were assigned the full capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day per lane, no significant impact would remain under the City’s impact criteria Freeway Impact Analysis The evaluation of Caltrans freeway facilities is governed by the document Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Caltrans, December 2002. This document gives specific criteria for the level of new project traffic that would require a traffic impact report and it spells out the methodology required for that analysis. The proposed Westside Parkway is a freeway facility under Caltrans jurisdiction, which is not part of the Project. To measure the Project’s impact on this facility, the significant impact criteria used in this analysis was based on a methodology that has been used by Caltrans for other traffic studies in California. A significant project-related impact would require mitigation if: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-68 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 1. The facility is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) E or F (volume-to-capacity [V/C] ratio > 0.90) after the addition of project traffic, and 2. The project traffic causes an incremental change in the V/C ratio of greater than 0.01 (1 percent of the capacity of the facility). The proposed development would not be considered to have a regionally significant impact, regardless of the increase in V/C ratio, if the analyzed facility is projected to operate at LOS D or better after the addition of Project traffic. Freeway Mainline Impact Analysis Improvements to the SR 99 freeway mainline are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield. These improvements are planned and implemented by the State involving the State Legislature, the California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. The Project adds a maximum of 69 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 141 in the afternoon peak hour to the SR 99 freeway mainline under the full buildout conditions (Phases I, II, & III, year 2035). Based on direction from the City, it was determined that the Project traffic volumes projected to be added to the SR 99 freeway mainline were not significant and thus no analysis of the freeway mainline was considered necessary. However, an analysis of potential Project-generated traffic impacts along the future Westside Parkway is provided below. However, based on the current RTIF program, two widening improvements (between White Lane and Panama Lane and Olive Drive and Golden State Highway) along the SR 99 mainline are currently under consideration. The Project would pay its fair share contribution to these improvements as part of its RTIF contribution. These calculations are included in the RTIF calculations. Westside Parkway Segment Analysis Westside Parkway Analysis: Future with Project (Phase I -Year 2015) As noted, no Future without Project (year 2015) traffic volumes were provided for the Westside Parkway, therefore a qualitative analysis of the potential freeway impacts due to Project Phase I (year 2015) was conducted. In year 2015, it is expected that the Future without Project traffic volumes will be less than those in year 2035, due to expected ambient traffic growth in the region. Additionally, the Project traffic generated by Project Phase I is significantly less than that of Project Phases II & III. Finally, because the Westside City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-69 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Parkway will not extend to meet SR 58 by year 2015, a lesser percentage of Project traffic will use the Westside Parkway to get to and from the Project site. Based on these premises as well as the fact that the freeway segment must operate at LOS E or F before an impact may occur under the significant impact criteria, no significant traffic impact is expected to result from the addition of Project Phase I traffic in 2015. Westside Parkway Analysis: Future with Project (Phases I & II -Year 2035) The Project-generated traffic volumes from Phases I & II at the analyzed freeway segment locations are provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. This traffic was added to the Future without Project traffic volumes to determine the Future with Project Phases I & II freeway segment traffic volumes, provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project is expected to result in significant impacts at two of the three analyzed freeway segments in the afternoon peak hour: • Westbound in the afternoon peak hour between Calloway Drive and Coffee Road • Westbound in the afternoon peak hour between Coffee Road and Mohawk Street None of the other segments or time periods analyzed would experience a significant impact as a result of Project traffic. Westside Parkway Analysis: Future with Project (Phases I, II, & III -Year 2035) The Project-generated traffic volumes from Phases I, II, & III at the analyzed freeway segment locations are provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. This traffic was added to the Future without Project traffic volumes to determine the Future with Project Phases I, II, & III freeway segment traffic volumes, provided in Appendix F, Traffic Study, of this Draft EIR. As shown, the Project is expected to result in significant impacts at two of the three analyzed freeway segments in the afternoon peak hour: • Westbound in the afternoon peak hour between Calloway Drive and Coffee Road • Westbound in the afternoon peak hour between Coffee Road and Mohawk Street None of the other segments or time periods analyzed would experience a significant impact as a result of Project traffic. Caltrans does not typically expect a single project to implement major freeway widening projects as part of project mitigation. Instead, Caltrans has defined a “Fair Share” methodology that is based on a project City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-70 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 participating financially in a freeway improvement according to its proportional impact on the affected freeway facility. In instances where the addition of project traffic causes a significant impact on the freeway facility, the Project is required to mitigate that impact by paying a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane). The Fair Share is calculated by comparing the amount of Project traffic added to the facility to the total amount of growth in traffic on that impacted segment over the next 25-year time period. To identify the total amount of growth over the time period from 2010 to 2035, it was assumed that east-west traffic in the general corridor is growing by one percent per year. This assumption allows the calculation of the growth of traffic from now until 2035. If there were freeway improvement projects proposed in these segments, the Project would owe 7.3 percent of the cost of the first segment and 22.7 percent of the second. At the present time, neither of these additional auxiliary lanes is proposed as part of the Westside Parkway construction project. Through payment of the Project’s Fair Share of these improvements, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the Project shall comply with the following mitigation measure: C-55. The Project shall pay a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane) consistent with Caltrans Fair Share methodology that is based on a project participating financially in a freeway improvement according to its proportional impact on the affected freeway facility. Regional Traffic Impact Fee Analysis The Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) calculation computes the Project share for each of the RTIF improvements. The computed Project share is the proportion of the Project traffic of the total new traffic at all the RTIF facilities in the study area at the buildout year. The RTIF calculation computes the Project’s fair-share for the improvements proposed as part of the RTIF program based on the unit rates listed in Table IV.C-6. Table IV.C-22, Regional Transportation Impact Fee -After First Year for Each Project Phase, summarizes the RTIF contributions for each of the Project phases. Based on direction from the City, the RTIF calculations did not take into account any credits for pass-by trips. As shown in the table, the Project’s RTIF contribution is $8,089,614, $3,571,870, and $3,148,546 for Phases I, II, and III, respectively, resulting in a total of $14,810,030 for the full Project. These calculations are informational only and will be subject to possible revision at time of development based on City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-71 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 updates to the RTIF program. However, with implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to the Project’s contribution to RTIF would be less than significant. C-56. Prior to the commencement of Phase II, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared a traffic confirmation analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase II for review and approval by the City. Prior to the commencement of Phase III, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared an additional confirmation traffic analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase III for review and approval by the City. Table IV.C-22 Regional Transportation Impact Fee -After First Year for Each Project Phase Land Use Dwelling Units/Average Daily Trips Minimum Unit RTIF Final RTIF Phase I Non-Residential per ADT trip: Office Commercial (Zone C-2 North of the Railroad) – 200,000 sf Retail & Theater Commercial (Zone C-C – Core Area) – 800,000 sf Subtotal Phase I 2,202 28,773 -$198 $266 -$435,996 $7,653,618 $8,089,614 Phase II Non-Residential per ADT trip: Office Commercial (Zone C-C – Core Area) – 200,000 sf Retail Commercial (Zone C-C – Core Area) – 600,000 sf Subtotal Phase II 2,202 11,789 -$198 $266 -$435,996 $3,135,874 $3,571,870 Phase III Residential per Living Unit: Single Family – 80 du Multi-Family – 345 du Non-Residential per ADT trip: Office Commercial (Zone C-2 North of the Railroad) – 200,000 sf Subtotal Phase III 80 345 2,2002 -$13,595 $4,710 $198 -$1,087,600 $1,624,950 $435,996 $3,148,546 Total $14,810,030 Source: Gibson, October 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-72 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 On August 4, 2009, the Home Builder’s Association (HBA) filed a lawsuit against the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern seeking, among other things, a court determination that the RTIF adopted jointly by the City and the Kern County be declared invalid and void. The City maintains that the revised Phase IV RTIF is lawful and accurate and the City is vigorously defending against the claims alleged in the lawsuit. The analysis and mitigation of potential traffic impacts discussed in this Draft EIR assume the validity of the Phase IV RTIF. If the pending HBA lawsuit is resolved in a manner which requires the City to rescind or modify the Phase IV RTIF, such resolution could affect the adequacy or enforceability of traffic mitigation. In that event, the City has the discretion to review and modify traffic mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project if the Project is approved, or to adopt new and different mitigation measures, to ensure that traffic mitigation is adequate and enforceable. In addition, if this project is approved and becomes subject to a lawsuit on the ground that the traffic mitigation is inadequate or unenforceable as a result of the pending HBA lawsuit, the City reserves its discretion to request a continuance/delay of the adjudication of such a lawsuit until resolution of the HBA lawsuit. Construction Impacts Activity at construction projects is typically concentrated outside of the peak travel periods, with most workers usually arriving prior to 7:00 a.m. and departing the Project site between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., thereby avoiding generating trips during the morning and afternoon peak hour periods. Construction employee trips are expected to be relatively constant throughout construction. Traffic impacts from construction activities would be expected to occur as a result of the following types of activities: • Increases in truck truck traffic associated with removal or import of fill materials and delivery of construction materials; • Increases in automobile traffic associated with construction workers traveling to and from the site; • Reductions in existing street capacity from temporary lane closures necessary for the construction of roadway improvements, utility relocation and drainage facilities; and • Blocking existing vehicle or pedestrian access to other parcels fronting streets. Table IV.C-23, Monthly Totals Of Off-Site Construction Trips, below summarizes the monthly totals haul truck trips, delivery truck trips and the construction workers for the each development phase of the Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-73 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-23 Monthly Totals Of Off-Site Construction Trips Development Phase Haul Trips Delivery Trips Number of Construction Workers Phase I Range Average 6 -33 27 5 -385 216 33 -290 165 Phase II Range Average 3 – 30 14 3 -260 142 29 -305 148 Phase III Range Average 3 -9 6 2 -130 71 15 -160 78 Total Maximum 72 775 755 Source: Gibson 2009, and Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. The impact of construction truck traffic (including haul trucks) would be a lessening of the capacities of access streets and haul routes due to slower movements and larger turning radii of trucks. As shown in the table above, the highest number of the truck trips and occurs in Phase I of the Project, and the highest daily construction worker manpower occurs in Phase II of the Project. The construction schedule estimated that the average daily truck travel (including haul trucks and delivery trucks) ranged from 16 trips (eight inbound and eight outbound) per day during the average quarter (Phase I) to 28 trips (14 inbound and 14 outbound) per day during the peak quarter (Phase I). On an average hourly basis, assuming a uniform distribution of trips over the workday, these daily trip totals would translate to two trips per hour in the average quarter and four trips per hour in the peak quarter. This level of truck travel would be equivalent to between six and 12 passenger cars per hour. This level of added traffic would not adversely affect street operations. Construction worker traffic would depend on not only the level of effort during various construction phases, but also on the mode and time of travel of the workers. The hours of construction typically require workers to be on-site before the morning commute peak period and allow them to leave before the afternoon peak period. It is estimated that the daily manpower would be 165 workers during the average quarter (Phase I), which would rise to about 305 workers during the peak quarter (Phase II). Assuming that 25 percent of the construction employees would enter or leave the Project Site during the peak hours, this translates to 42 trips in the average quarter and 77 trips in the peak quarter during the peak commute periods. This level of added traffic is not expected to adversely affect street operations and impacts would be less than significant. City and emergency services would be identified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Project. Thus, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-74 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 construction activities attributable to the proposed Project are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure C-57 is proposed: C-57. The Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Bakersfield. Construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements: a. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. b. Provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person). c. Scheduling construction activities that affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. d. Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible. e. Consolidating truck deliveries to the extent feasible. f. Provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-and off-site, to the extent feasible. g. Construction-related vehicles shall not park on any residential street. h. No construction activity shall block access to any residence or place of business, without prior consent or compensation. i. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing, and protection barriers. Roadway Hazards Widening and/or other improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment. The proposed Project and associated mitigation measures at intersections are thus not expected to result in design features that would result in an increase in roadway hazards and impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-75 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Emergency Access As mentioned above, all of the Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below the significance criteria set forth by the City of Bakersfield. Since the Project impacts at the analyzed intersections have been mitigated to below the significance set forth by the City of Bakersfield under all Phases of the Project, the Project traffic is not expected to have a significant impact at the emergency access to/from the Project site and within the study area. Parking The Project’s parking objectives include providing sufficient parking on-site to meet demands generated by the Project and supporting trip and emission reduction goals by providing preferred parking for carpools/vanpools, bicycle racks/showers, and loading/unloading areas for vans and shuttles for the nonresidential components of the Project. Code parking requirements for the Project would be developed by applying appropriate requirements from the Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17.58. Most zoning codes’ parking requirements are based on individual uses and do not account for the sharing of the parking supply by different uses on the same site. Due to the mixed-use nature of the Project, parking supply would be conducted based on typical weekday and weekend rates used in Shared Parking (Urban Land Institute, 1993) to evaluate the potential parking demands generated by the various uses in combination, taking into consideration variation in demands by time of day and season. Shared Parking describes shared parking as follows: “Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: -“variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, by season and the individual land uses, and -“relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip.” Most zoning codes provide peak parking ratios for individual land uses. While this appropriately recognizes that separate land uses generate different parking demands on an individual basis, it does not City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-76 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 reflect the fact that the combined peak parking demand, when a mixture of land uses shares the same parking supply, can be substantially less than the sum of the individual demands. For example, retail uses peak in the early-to mid-afternoon while restaurant uses peak in the lunch time and/or evening hours (depending on the type of restaurant) and cinema uses peak in the evening hours. Three types of shared parking effects are: variations in time-of-day accumulation of parking demands, seasonal variations, and internal capture between the various uses. Peak demand ratios, time-of-day, and seasonal variation factors are available in Shared Parking. Therefore, based on the Bakersfield Municipal Code and application of shared parking as appropriate, the Project would provide adequate parking for the proposed land uses, and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative Transportation Several roadways in the study area have bike lanes. Although the Project site is not directly served by bus transit, the Golden Empire Transit provides bus transit service along several key corridors with the study area including, Stockdale Highway, Rosedale Highway, Calloway Drive, Coffee Road (north of the Project site) Ming Avenue, New Stine Avenue, and California Avenue. Mitigation Measure C-58, below, is proposed and the Project site plan would be designed to not adversely affect the existing and proposed infrastructure for the alternative transportation modes in the vicinity of the Project site and in the study area and impacts would be less than significant. C-58. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project on existing bus lines. Highway Railroad Crossings Fourteen of the highway-railroad crossings in the Project study area are currently at-grade. The remaining crossings are either above-grade or below-grade. The City’s RTIF program includes improvements such as widening and grade separations at the at-grade crossings where high traffic volumes and safety measures warrant an improvement. The Project would pay its fair share contribution for these improvements as part of its RTIF. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-77 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets forth goals and policies to avoid traffic congestion that would result from buildout of the land use plan. The applicable goals and policies are discussed below, in Table IV.C-24, Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies. Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Streets Goal 1: Provide a safe and efficient street system that links all parts of the area for movement of people and goods. Consistent. The Project would provide a new onsite street system that will provide linkages to existing streets. All improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG, and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment. Goal 2: Provide for safe and efficient motorized, nonmotorized, and pedestrian traffic movement. Consistent. The Project includes construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in addition to proposed street improvements. Goal 3: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on circulation, and on noise-sensitive land uses. Consistent. Mitigation Measure C-66 is proposed to reduce impacts associated with Project construction, including truck trips. As discussed in Section IV.L., Noise, of this Draft EIR, delivery, loading, and solid waste operations will be implemented in compliance with Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive land uses. Goal 5: Provide a system of freeways which maintains adequate travel times in and around the metropolitan area. Consistent. Project generated freeway trips are not anticipated to significantly impact freeway operations or travel times. Project generated freeway trips on two of the future Westside Parkway segments analyzed would result in significant impacts. These impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant impact by the Project’s Fair Share payment of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-78 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Goal 6: Provide a local street network that contributes to the quality and safety of residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Consistent. The Project would provide a local street network throughout the site including in proposed residential and commercial areas in compliance with applicable City standards. Improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG, and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment to ensure safety. Policy 2: Establish design standards contained in the table on page III-11 of the Circulation Element for the City street street system. Consistent. The Project would implement street improvements in compliance with the standards established the City. Policy 3: Provide additional right-of-way and pavement width to accommodate turn lanes at intersections. Consistent. Improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG, and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment to ensure safety. Policy 4: Provide additional right-of-way and pavement width at other locations for turn lanes, bus lanes, etc., as needed, based on engineering study. Consistent. Improvements to intersections and street segments would be designed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG, and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment to ensure safety. Policy 5: Place traffic signals to minimize vehicular delay. Consistent. The Project would incorporate traffic signals to minimize delay as applicable. Policy 6: Design and locate site access driveways to minimize traffic disruption where possible considering items such as topography, past parcelization and other factors. Consistent. Access driveways would be provided in compliance with established standards. Policy 7: Minimize direct and uncontrolled property access from arterials. Consistent. The Project would provide access from Coffee Road in accordance with established standards. Policy 11: Design local collector street systems to minimize through traffic movements and include short block lengths to discourage excessive speed. Consistent. Local collector streets would be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineering Department, Kern COG, and/or Caltrans, based on the jurisdiction responsible for the intersection and/or street segment to ensure safety. Policy 12: Maintain the integrity of the circulation system. Consistent. The Project would provide an internal street system while providing connections to existing street systems. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-79 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Policy 15: Prohibit trucks from non-truck routes within incorporated areas except as necessary for direct property access for pick up and delivery. Consistent. The Project does not propose to allow trucks on non-truck routes accept as necessary for pick up and delivery. Policy 16: Require that truck access to commercial and industrial properties be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential parcels. Consistent. The Project’s land use plan has been developed to minimize impacts to residential uses by arranging commercial uses near Coffee and Brimhall Roads, separate from proposed residential uses. Policy 17: Require buildings expected to be serviced by delivery trucks to provide off-street facilities for access and parking. Consistent. The Project would provide for offstreet access and parking for trucks as applicable. Policy 22: Design transportation improvements to minimize noise impacts to adjacent uses. Consistent. Mitigation Measure C-66 is proposed to reduce impacts associated with Project construction. As discussed in Section IV.L., Noise, of this Draft EIR, delivery, loading, and solid waste operations will be implemented in compliance with Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive land uses. Policy 34: Minimize the impacts of land use development on the circulation system. Review all development plans, rezoning applications, and proposed general plan amendments with respect to their impact on the transportation systems, and require revisions as necessary. Consistent. Project would provide an internal street system while providing connections to existing street systems. Policy 35: Require new development and expansion of existing development in incorporated areas to fully provide for on-site transportation facilities including streets, curbs, traffic control devices, etc. Consistent. The Project would provide for on-site streets, curbs, traffic control devices, etc for all onsite street improvements completed on existing and proposed streets. Policy 36: Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service “C” where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service Standard) or when the existing Level of Service is below “C” prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three part mitigation program; adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvement and/or an area-wide impact fee. The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date. Not Consistent. After implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed Project are reduced to less than significant levels. The Project would also pay its fair share contribution for proposed RTIF program improvements. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-80 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Policy 37: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay for necessary access improvements, such as street extensions, widening, turn lanes, signals, etc., as identified in the transportation impact report as may be required for a project. Consistent. The Project would implement necessary improvements associated with Project construction. Policy 39: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in its pro rate share of the costs of expansions in area-wide transportation facilities and services which it necessitates. Consistent. The Project would pay its fair share contribution for proposed RTIF program improvements. Policy 40: Provide new local street systems that are logical and comprehensible and systems of street names and addresses that are simple, consistent, and understandable. Consistent. The Project would provide an internal street system that is logical and comprehensible and provide a system of street names in coordination with the City. Policy 41: Plan alignments for local streets to permit economical and practical patterns, shapes, and sizes of development parcels. Consistent. The proposed internal roadway system would be developed in accordance with City requirements and practices. Transit Goal 1: Provide planning area residents with a choice of travel modes. Consistent. The Project would provide a network of pedestrian and bike trails and lanes. The bike trails would be designed to link with existing and future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. Mitigation Measure C-67 is proposed to determine the feasibility of providing public transit service to and from the Project site. Goal 2: 2: Provide a street system and land development policies that support public transportation. Consistent. Mitigation Measure C-67 is proposed to determine the feasibility of providing transit service to and from the Project and the street improvements necessary for the provision of transit stops as applicable. Goal 4: Reduce traffic congestion and parking requirements and improve air quality through improved transportation services. Consistent. Mitigation Measure C-67 is proposed to determine the feasibility of providing transit service to and from the Project site. Policy 2: Consider for bus turnouts along arterials and collectors where appropriate. Consistent. The Applicant would coordinate with Golden Empire Transit as required by Mitigation Measure C-67 to determine the feasibility of providing transit service to the Project site and the street improvements necessary for the provision of transit stops as applicable. Policy 4: Coordinate with Golden Empire Transit and Kern Transit to locate bus stops as close as possible to the facilities they serve. Consistent. Mitigation Measure C-67 is proposed to determine the feasibility of providing transit service to and from the Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-81 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Policy 11: Work to provide grade separations at all arterial/railroad crossings. Consistent. The Project would pay its fair share contribution for proposed RTIF program improvements such as widening and grade separations at the at-grade crossings where high traffic volumes and safety measures warrant an improvement. Bikeways Goal 1: Provide a circulation system which recognizes and responds to the needs of bicycle travel. Consistent. The Project would provide a network of bike trails and lanes, as well as bike racks throughout the site. The bike trails would be designed to link with future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. Goal 2: Provide a circulation system that minimizes cyclist/motorist conflicts. Consistent. Bike lanes would be designed in accordance with City standards and would be separated from vehicular facilities if applicable. Goal 3: Provide a continuous easily-accessible bikeway system within the metro area. Consistent. The Project would provide bicycle lanes that would link to the existing and future system as applicable. Policy 1: Require bicycle facilities to be designed in accordance with the State Bikeway Design Criteria. Consistent. The Project would design all bicycle facilities in accordance with the State Bikeway Design Criteria. Policy 4: Maintain bicycle facilities so they do not become hazardous. Consistent. Bicycle facilities would be maintained as applicable. Policy 5: Consider bicycle safety when implementing improvements for automobile traffic operations. Consistent. Bicycle safety would be considered when implementing traffic improvements. Policy 7: Provide bicycle parking facilities at activity centers such as shopping centers, employment sites, and public buildings. Consistent. Bike rakes are proposed throughout the site. Policy 9: Require new subdivisions to provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets in accordance with the Bikeway Master Plan. Consistent. The Project would provide bike lanes as applicable. Policy 10: Encourage new subdivisions to provide internal bike paths where feasible and where natural features make bike paths desirable. Consistent. The Project proposes internal bike paths throughout the site to link uses within the site as well as provide linkages to City and regional bikeway systems. Policy 11: Construct bike lanes in conjunction with all street improvement projects that coincide with the Bikeway Master Plan. Consistent. Bike lanes would be constructed as applicable. Parking Goal 1: Provide an efficient parking system to respond to the needs of motorists. Consistent. Parking would be provided throughout the Project site as applicable. Surface parking lots are proposed, but may include parking parking structures if necessary to accommodate required parking on-site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-82 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.C-24 Project Consistency with Relevant Circulation Element Goals and Policies Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Goal 2: Satisfy parking requirements in all new developments (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) through off-street facilities. Consistent. Parking would be provided per the code parking requirements of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17.58 and the application of shared parking as appropriate. No on-street parking is proposed. Policy 3: Ensure that adequate on-site parking supply and parking lot circulation is provided on all site plans in accordance with the adopted parking standards. Consistent. Parking would be provided on-site per the code parking requirements of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 17.58 and the application of shared parking as appropriate. Policy 11: Discourage parking between the sidewalk and buildings in pedestrian sensitive areas. Consistent. No parking between the sidewalk and buildings is proposed in pedestrian areas. Airports Policy 1: Ensure compatibility between the general plan, airport master plans and airport land use compatibility plans. Consistent. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a public or private airport. The Project does not propose any uses that would result in a notable increase in air traffic levels or would induce a change in air traffic location. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, October 2009. In sum, the Project is generally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with respect to transportation and traffic. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Operational Traffic The analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed Project considers the effects of future growth in traffic within the region through consideration of traffic generated by future traffic growth and intersection, street segments, and freeway segments operating operating conditions that are forecasted as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site by year 2015 and 2035. Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth were incorporated into the traffic analysis and therefore reflected in the Future without and with Project conditions presented above. As shown above, none of the study intersections, street segments, or freeway segments are expected to be significantly impacted by Project traffic using the significance thresholds established by the City with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Additionally, similar to the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-83 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project, it is anticipated that related projects contributing to cumulative growth would be required on an individual basis to mitigate any significant traffic impacts to the extent possible and likely to less than significant levels. Nonetheless, because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project phase per Mitigation Measure C-56. Construction Impacts The City and emergency services would be identified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Project or related projects. Thus, construction activities attributable to the related projects, in conjunction with the proposed Project, are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no cumulative impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. Overall, the impact on the transportation system from construction activities would be temporary in nature and impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES The below summarizes the mitigation measures recommended under each of the following analyses completed above: 1. Intersection Impact Analysis #2: Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria 2. Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only): Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria 3. Street Segment Impact Analysis 4. Other Mitigation Measures • Westside Parkway Segment Analysis • Alternative Transportation • Construction • Regional Traffic Impact Fee City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-84 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS #2: FIVESECOND DELAY TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA The improvements to be completed may be rearranged based on development as long as impacts are fully mitigated and the Bakersfield Department of Transportation provides approval. The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (intersections are named with corresponding intersection numbers noted in parentheses)) under the “Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria”: Phase I (Year 2015) Intersections C-1. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-2. Coffee Road & Norris Road (20): Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. C-3. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared southbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-4. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one rightturn lane in the westbound and northbound directions. C-5. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound through lane to provide four through lanes and one right-turn lane and widening the westbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Install split signal phasing in the east/west direction. C-6. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-7. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): Increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-85 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-8. Real Road & Stockdale Highway (81): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-9. Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane (83): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-10. Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue (91): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound rightturn lane to provide two left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-11. California Avenue & Mohawk Street (95): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-12. Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue (96): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Phase II (Year 2035) C-13. Coffee Road & Hageman Road (9): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound leftturn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-14. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound and southbound shared through/right-turn lanes into separate through lanes and rightturn lanes to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction and two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction. C-15. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): Increase Increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-16. Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps (38): Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-86 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 provide two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-17. Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway (44): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-18. Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp (46): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the northbound direction. C-19. Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway (49): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared northbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. C-20. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. C-21. Chester Avenue & 24th Street (63): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared westbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one leftturn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-22. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound left-turn/through lane into one left-turn lane and one through lane to provide one leftturn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Phase III (Year 2035) C-23. Mohawk Street & Hageman Road (12): Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the westbound direction. C-24. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): Increase intersection capacity by converting the westbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-87 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-25. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. C-26. Chester Avenue & 23rd Street (66): Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-27. Gosford Street & Camino Media (98): Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION UNDER INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS #2: FIVE-SECOND DELAY TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA Under the analyzed scenario, Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below significance criteria set forth under the Five-Second Delay intersection analysis criteria. MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER GREEN-TIME PRIORITY ANALYSIS #2 (ROSEDALE CORRIDOR INTERSECTIONS ONLY): FIVE-SECOND DELAY TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA The improvements to be completed may be rearranged based on development as long as impacts are fully mitigated and the Bakersfield Department of Transportation provides approval. The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (intersections are named with corresponding intersection numbers noted in parentheses)) under the “Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria” applying the Green-Time Priority Analysis: Phase I (Year 2015) C-28. Allen Road & Rosedale Highway (25): Improve intersection operation by installing overlapping right-turn signal phasing in all four directions. C-29. Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway (28): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-88 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C-30. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-31. Patton Way & Rosedale Highway (31): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in both directions. C-32. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-33. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. C-34. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide four through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. C-35. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway (59): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. Phase II (Year 2035) C-36. Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway (27): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. C-37. Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway (29): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-38. Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway (30): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-89 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-39. Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway (32): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane. C-40. Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway (56): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. C-41. Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway (57): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. C-42. SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway (58): This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the eastbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide three through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the eastbound direction. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION UNDER GREEN-TIME PRIORITY IMPACT ANALYSIS #2: FIVE-SECOND DELAY TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA Under the analyzed scenario, Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below significance criteria set forth under the Green-Time Priority Analysis #2 intersection analysis with the exception two intersections during afternoon peak hours, thus resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts at the following two intersections: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER STREET SEGMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS The improvements to be completed may be rearranged based on development as long as impacts are fully mitigated and the Bakersfield Department of Transportation provides approval. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-90 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures (street segments are named with corresponding segment number) under the “Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria” applying the Green-Time Priority Analysis: Phase I (Year 2015) C-43. Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway (29): Add one lane in each direction from Rosedale Highway to the BNSF railroad overpass. C-44. Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (30): Add one lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way. C-45. Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (44): Add one lane in each direction from the BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road. C-46. Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road (45): Add one lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to the Westside Parkway. C-47. Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (47): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue C-48. Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (61): Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway. C-49. California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (65): Add one lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway. Phase II (Year 2035) C-50. Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (14): Add one lane in each direction from Olive Road to Hageman Road. C-51. Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway (28): Add one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway. C-52. Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street (31): Add one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street. C-53. Gosford Avenue south of Ming Avenue (77): Add one lane in each direction Ming Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-91 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phase III (Year 2035) C-54. Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway (62): Add one lane in each direction. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION UNDER STREET SEGMENT ANALYSIS The Mitigation Measures proposed for street segments 14, 30, 31, 47, 61, 62, 65, and 77 were determined to be infeasible and therefore significant and unavoidable impacts would remain at these street segments. In the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient rightof-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES Freeway Segments C-55. The Project shall pay a Fair Share of the cost of additional improvements to that freeway segment to accommodate the increased traffic (i.e., a new freeway lane) consistent with Caltrans Fair Share methodology that is based on a project participating financially in a freeway improvement according to its proportional impact on the affected freeway facility. Regional Traffic Impact Fee C-56. Prior to the commencement of Phase II, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared a traffic confirmation analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase II for review and approval by the City. Prior to the commencement of Phase III, the Applicant shall cause to be prepared an additional confirmation traffic analysis by a traffic engineer comparing the projected results provided for in the Traffic Study with then existing conditions. The analysis shall include a review of the implementation status of RTIF improvements assumed in the Traffic Study and any changes to growth projections provided for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.C. Transportation/Traffic Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.C-92 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 in the Traffic Study. The analysis shall include recommendations for any modifications to the proposed mitigation measures necessary to mitigate impacts from Phase III for review and approval by the City. Construction C-57. The Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Bakersfield. Construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements: a. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. b. Provisions for temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person). c. Scheduling construction activities that affect traffic flow on public roadways to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. d. Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets to the extent feasible. e. Consolidating truck deliveries to the extent feasible. f. Provision of dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment onand off-site, to the extent feasible. g. Construction-related vehicles shall not park on any residential street. h. No construction activity shall block access to any residence or place of business, without prior consent or compensation. i. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing, and protection barriers. Alternative Transportation C-58. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project on existing bus lines. Mitigation Improvements C-59. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Applicant shall guarantee funding and/or construction for the completion of all required traffic mitigation measures for that phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION This section discusses the potential for the proposed Project to result in significant environmental impacts related to visual character and light and glare. To assess visual character impacts, this section describes the existing aesthetic environment, both on the site and in the Project vicinity, and qualitatively evaluates the manner in which the proposed Project would alter that environment. Focus is placed on key vantage points that represent the most critical locations from which the Project would be seen. Light and glare issues are addressed by considering the qualitative aesthetic characteristics of the existing nighttime lighting and daytime glare environments on the site and the modifications the proposed Project would make to those environments. This section is based in part on the Artificial Lighting Analysis prepared by Lighting Design Studio, LLC, dated February 2008. This report is provided in Appendix E, Artificial Lighting Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to result in significant environmental impacts related to visual deterioration associated with urban decay is discussed in Section IV.B, Urban Decay, of this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Visual Character The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield, east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway (refer to Figures III-1 and III-2 in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting). The Metropolitan Bakersfield area includes the City of Bakersfield, its designated sphere of influence, and contiguous properties located in the unincorporated portions of Kern County. The Metropolitan Bakersfield area covers approximately 408 square miles and is characterized by a core of urban and suburban land use types that were developed along the principal north-south arterial of the Central Valley, State Route 99 (SR-99), and the Kern River. The core area is generally surrounded by low intensity agriculture, oil production, and open spaces in which small communities historically developed as agricultural centers. In recent years, greater development has occurred in the northwest and southwest portions of the community. Metropolitan Bakersfield contains several unique and identifiable neighborhoods, including Downtown, Westchester, Old Stockdale, Rosedale, Oleander, Seven Oaks, Rio Bravo, Riverlakes and other established portions of the community. Distinctive architectural themes have been created in recent residential and commercial developments in the southwestern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield through the use of landscaping, signage, and consistent architectural design. Aesthetic incompatibilities are noticeable where commercial and residential uses are located along major transportation corridors or where commercial and residential uses are adjacent to industrial uses without adequate buffers. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Local Visual Character As discussed in Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of this Draft EIR, the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) separates the City into four quadrants, with SR-99 serving as the north-south axis and Stockdale Highway (SR-58) serving as the east-west axis. These four quadrants are further subdivided into developed urban and rural-undeveloped areas. The Project site is located in the Urban Northwest Planning Area of Bakersfield. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan defines the Urban Northwest as follows: Urban Northwest. The urban northwest is generally bounded by 7th Standard Road on the north, Renfro Road on the west, the Kern River on the south, and Highway 99 on the east. This area includes the communities of Rosedale and Greenacres, and the Fruitvale Oil Field. The Rosedale community consists of large-lot rural residences, local serving commercial, and scattered oil refineries. The Greenacres community also consists of many large-lot rural residences. The Project site is also located approximately one mile from the northern boundary of the Urban Southwest Planning Area (i.e., the Kern River). The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan defines the Urban Southwest as follows: Urban Southwest. The urban southwest is generally bordered on the north by the Kern River, on the south by Pacheco Road, on the east by State Highway 99, and on the west by areas west of Allen Road. The majority of this area has been master planned and developed with suburban type single-family residences and neighborhood commercial areas. There are two major commercial nodes in the Southwest: an office/commercial node along California Avenue and a retail node along Ming Avenue. Industrial uses are concentrated around the McKittrick Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. California State University, Bakersfield is located in the urban southwest area. It should be noted that substantial commercial and office potential also exists south and west of the University. The general vicinity of the Project site can be considered an area where the scattered industrial uses characteristic of the Urban Northwest meet the suburban subdivisions and neighborhood commercial zones that primarily characterize the Urban Southwest. Visual character-defining uses in the Project area include sizeable vacant lands to the north, south, and east; single-family home subdivisions to the south and west; commercial and industrial uses concentrated along Rosedale Highway; prominent retail centers including the Northwest Promenade (which includes approximately one million square feet of major big box anchor retail tenants) to the north and Stockdale Village Shopping Center to the south; and the Kern River Parkway recreational node and bicycle path to the south. The site is topographically flat. Because of the incongruous mix and distribution of land uses in the immediate Project vicinity, vicinity, the area lacks a cohesive visual identity. Additionally, the sparse landscaping, flatness of the area, and prevalence of industrial infrastructure and vacant land (including the Project site itself) create a scenic environment that can generally be considered lackluster. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 On-Site Visual Character West of Coffee Road The Project site is bisected by Coffee Road, which creates two areas with distinct visual characteristics. The 165-acre portion of the site west of Coffee Road is flat and undeveloped. PG&E transmission towers run in a north-south direction over an approximately 20-acre, 330-foot-wide transmission corridor and City drainage area in the center of this portion of the Project site. The Project site is visible from a number of surrounding locations; however, the following vantage points play a major role in shaping the public’s perception of the western portion of the Project site: • Brimhall Road (looking north). Views 1 and 2 in Figure IV.D-1, Views of the Project Site from Brimhall Road, characterize the appearance of this portion of the site for motorists driving on Brimhall Road and private residents residing directly south of the Project site in the Fox Creek and Pheasant Run subdivisions. • Coffee Road (looking west). Views 3 and 4 in Figure IV.D-2, Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road (West-Facing), characterize the appearance of this portion of the site for motorists driving on Coffee Road. Views of the western portion of the Project site differ for northbound and southbound motorists because Coffee Road is at-grade near the southern portion of the site and is elevated to form an overpass over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway near the northern portion of the site. Thus, northbound motorists view the parcel at the same elevation until it passes their line-of-sight, as evidenced in View 3, while southbound viewers are presented with an uninhibited, panoramic view of the entire property from their elevated vantage point on the overpass, as evidenced in View 4. • Windsong Street (looking east). Views 5 and 6 in Figure IV.D-3, Views of the Project Site from Windsong Street, characterize the appearance of this portion of the site for private residents residing directly west of the Project site in the Windsong subdivision. To the north, private, undeveloped properties; a PG&E plant; scattered commercial/industrial and singlelot residential uses off Shellabarger Road, Elzworth Street, and Langley Avenue; and a railroad right-ofway flank the portion of the Project site on the west side of Coffee Road. These areas are not considered “primary vantage points” because they provide few viewers with the opportunity to observe the Project site. As shown by the photographs included in Figures IV.D-1, IV.D-2, and IV.D-3, the existing visual character of the western portion of the Project site from the primary vantage points in the area can generally be described as indistinctive. The property’s bare landscape does not contain any qualitydefining visual characteristics such as landforms, water features, structures, or vegetation. While the electric transmissions lines are clearly visible from surrounding vantage points, points, they do not meaningfully City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 contribute to the quality or character of the Project site because they are infrastructural in nature, located above the direct line-of-sight, and occupy a relatively small portion of the property. East of Coffee Road The portion of the Project site east of Coffee Road consists of approximately 71 acres located north and south of the BNSF Railway and is generally bounded by Coffee Road to the west and the Friant-Kern Canal to the east. The southern boundary of the Project site east of Coffee Road is located approximately 1,750 feet north of Brimhall Road. South of the BNSF Railway, a six-acre parcel is occupied by a 1,400-square foot office building, a truck repair and maintenance facility, and associated parking. North of the BNSF Railway is located an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building currently leased to ConocoPhillips and 53 parking spaces located in the northeast corner of the Project site. There are also two active oil wells located on small portions of the Project site east of Coffee Road, one north, and one south of the BNSF Railway. The primary views that shape the public’s perception of this portion of the Project site are available from Coffee Road. Representative views from this location are depicted in Views 7 and 8 in Figure IV.D-4, Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road (East-Facing). The existing visual character of the eastern portion of the Project site from primary vantage points along Coffee Road can generally be described as common commercial/industrial. The existing on-site uses appear incongruous with each other due to the dividing function of the BNSF Railway, the diversity in land uses (e.g., office building, tank farm, truck storage and maintenance), and on-site landscaping that shields the ConocoPhillips use from other uses. Various uses surround the eastern portion of the site to the north, east, and south, including the Friant-Kern Canal and the Big West refinery to the east, a single-family home and commercial uses to the south, and a Lowe’s Home Improvement store to the north. None of these areas are considered primary vantage points because they provide few viewers with the opportunity to observe the Project site. In the case of Lowe’s, views of the site from the Lowe’s parking lot are largely hindered by fencing, the buffer provided by the Friant-Kern Canal, and other structures just south of the Lowe’s property (refer to Views 7 and 8 in Figure IV.D-5, Views of the Project Site from Lowe’s Property). The Project would be visible from the Kern River Parkway (refer to Views 9 and 10 in Figure IV.D-6, Views of the Project Site from the Kern River). View 1: View of Project Site looking north from Brimhall Road. View 2: View of Project Site looking northwest from Brimhall Road. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 13, 2009. Figure IV.D-1 Views of the Project Site from Brimhall Road City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank View 3: View of Project Site looking west from Coffee Road just north of Brimhall Road. View 4: View of Project Site looking southwest from the Coffee Road overpass. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 9, 2007. Figure IV.D-2 Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road (West-Facing) City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. View 5: View of Project Site looking east from Windsong Street. View 6: View of Project Site looking east from the intersection of Windsong Street and Brimhall Road. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 13, 2009. Figure IV.D-3 Views of the Project Site from Windsong Street City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. View 7: View of Project Site looking east from the Coffee Road overpass. View 8: View of Project Site looking east from Coffee Road, just north of the overpass. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 13, 2009. Figure IV.D-4 Views of the Project Site from Coffee Road City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. View 9: Looking south towards the Project Site from the Lowe’s Home Improvement Store property north of the site. As shown, views of the Project Site from this location are largely obstructed. View 10: Looking south towards the Project Site from the Lowe’s Home Improvement Store property north of the site. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 13, 2009. Figure IV.D-5 Views of the Project Site from Lowes Property City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. View 11: Looking north from the Kern River bike path west of Coffee Road towards the Project site in the far background. View 12: Looking northwest from the recreational area near the intersection of Coffee Road and Truxton Avenue towards the Project site in the far background. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 13, 2009. Figure IV.D-6 Views of the Project Site from the Kern River City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Off-Site Visual Character The area surrounding the Project site is topographically flat and contains an incongruous mix and distribution of land uses with little vegetation, except for landscaping associated with the adjacent residential subdivisions. The Fox Creek and Pheasant Run single-family subdivisions are located west of Coffee Road and south of Brimhall Road, and are buffered from the thoroughfare by a brick wall and landscaping. The newly constructed Crown Pointe Business Center office plaza (that includes the Hoffman Hospice), an adjacent vacant parcel, two-story apartments in the Villa Mondavi development, and a Chevron gas station are also located south of the site. The Windsong single-family subdivision comprises the primary visual component west of the Project site. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located to the north, north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway and west of Coffee Road, and the Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J) is located further to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal. The actual facilities associated with the PG&E power plant and refinery are not located immediately adjacent to the Project site; rather, the site is flanked to the north and east by sizeable portions of vacant land associated with the industrial uses. As such, views looking north and east from the site are primarily characterized by vacant land in the foreground and industrial infrastructure in the background. Photographs of the adjacent land uses are shown in Figures III-3 and III-4 in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Overall, the visual character of the surrounding area can be described as mismatched, incompatible, and lacking a cohesive visual identity. The visual experience of the area is dominated by the extreme and conspicuous contrast between the heavy industrial and commercial character to the north and east and the manicured, suburban residential character to the south and west. Light and Glare Environment “Light spill” is typically defined as the presence of unwanted and/or misdirected light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. Light spill can emanate from the interior of structures through windows or from exterior sources, such as street lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. The portion of the Project site west of Coffee Road is currently vacant, and as such, generates little to no light. Light is generated on the eastern portion of the Project site by the existing office development and truck maintenance facility and storage uses. These sources, like those in the surrounding vicinity, are typical of an urban area with a nighttime ambient light environment that is characterized by artificial lighting, and include interior and exterior building lighting, security/courtesy lighting for parking areas, vehicle headlights, and street lighting. The nearest light-sensitive land uses are residential uses located immediately west and south of the Project site. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person when looking directly into the light source of a luminaire fixture. Glare also results from sunlight reflection off flat building surfaces, with glass typically contributing the highest degree of reflectivity. The portion of the Project site west of Coffee Road is currently vacant, and as such, generates little to no glare. Daytime City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 sources of glare on the eastern portion of the Project site and in the surrounding area include reflections off of light-colored surfaces, windows, and metal details on cars traveling on nearby roadways. Regulatory Setting The following describes the adopted regulations and planning policies that would apply to the proposed Project upon approval. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), adopted in December 2002, is a joint planning document adopted by both the County of Kern and the City to provide for a cohesive land use planning effort for the entire metropolitan Bakersfield area. The MBGP is a policy document designed to give long-range guidance for decision-making affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. It represents the official statement of the community’s physical development as well as its economic, social, and environmental goals. The MBGP contains the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities and Parks. Policies and goals that pertain to visual character and light and glare and are applicable to the proposed Project are included in the Land Use, Public Services and Facilities – Street Lighting, and Parks Elements. The Land Use Element contains the following relevant goals and policies. The proposed Project’s consistency with each of these policies is analyzed in Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of this Draft EIR: • Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses. • Accommodate new development that capitalizes on the Planning area's natural environmental setting, including the Kern River and the foothills. • Accommodate new development that is sensitive to the natural environment, and accounts for environmental hazards. • Establish a built environment that that achieves a compatible functional and visual relationship among individual buildings and sites. • Encourage maintenance of the residential character of specially identified neighborhoods through such mechanisms as architectural design, landscape, and property setbacks. • Retain existing residential neighborhoods as designated on the Land Use Plan, and allow for the infill of residential land uses that are compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Encourage the use of creative and distinctive signage that establishes a distinctive image for the Planning area and identifies principal entries to the metropolitan area, unique districts, neighborhoods and locations. • Prohibit the use of private, permanent signs in residential neighborhoods, except those for identification, sales and rental of property. • Develop a distinctive identity for the Bakersfield region that differentiates it as a unique place in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. • Allow variation in the use of street trees, shrubs, lighting, and other details to give streets better visual continuity and increased shade canopy. • Provide for the installation of street trees that enhance pedestrian activity and convey a distinctive and high quality visual image. • Encourage landscaping the banks of flood control channels, canals, roadways and other public improvements with trees to provide a strong visual element in the Planning area. • Promote the establishment of attractive entrances into communities, major districts, and transportation terminals, centers, and corridors within the Planning area. • Encourage the establishment of design programs which may include signage, street furniture, landscape, lighting, pavement treatments, public art, and architectural design. • Provide for an orderly outward expansion of new “urban” development (any commercial, industrial, and residential development having a density greater than one unit per acre) so that it maintains continuity of existing development, allows for the incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services, minimizes impacts on natural environmental resources, and provides a high quality environment for living and business. The Public Services and Facilities – Street Lighting Element contains the following relevant goals and policies. The proposed Project’s consistency with each of these policies is analyzed under the “Project Impacts” heading, below. • Provide uniform and adequate public lighting for all developed and developing portions of the Planning area. • Provide for adequate lighting on public grounds where night use is encouraged. • Require developers to install street lighting in all new developments in accord with adopted city standards and county policies. The Parks Element contains the following relevant goals and policies. The proposed project’s consistency with each of these policies is analyzed in Section IV.N, Public Services, of this Draft EIR: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Coordinate development of park facilities and trail systems throughout the plan area which enhance the centers concept and complement unique visual or natural resources. • Ensure that all park and recreation facilities are adequately designed, landscaped, and maintained. • Encourage variety in the design of park facilities to enhance the lifestyle of residents to be served. • Design vegetation, earth form and activity areas to buffer noise, light, etc., from adjacent residents. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code The City of Bakersfield Municipal Code contains specific provisions pertaining to lighting standards. In general, projects that are subject to site plan review must include methods of minimizing direct light and glare impacts upon vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or adjacent properties. Lighting hoods or shields should be employed for directing light downward. These restrictions apply to, but are not limited to, lighting for parking areas and other types of large-scale onsite lighting and signage. Compliance is ensured by conditions of approval attached to discretionary development permits. In the City of Bakersfield, development and building improvements requiring a building permit (except for single-family residences) are subject to review according to their adherence with City standards, regulations, and policies for the issuance of a development permit. Certain projects, including Planning Unit Developments and Planned Commercial Developments, are subject to review by the Planning Commission in formal public hearing. All other projects are subject to review and approval by the Site Plan Review Committee or staff. General regulations governing site plan review are set forth in Chapter 17.08 of the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to visual resources if it were to result in one or more of the following: (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 buildings within a state scenic highway; (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As discussed in the Initial Study that was prepared for the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR), impacts would be less than significant with City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 respect to the State CEQA Guidelines Thresholds (a) and (b), and further analysis of these issues is not required in this EIR. Accordingly, the following discussion focuses on Thresholds (c) and (d). Project Design Features The following Project Design features with respect to aesthetics have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • Landscaping would represent a minimum of ten percent of the proposed Project area. A landscape plan would be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and would include the approximate size and location of all proposed plant materials, the scientific and common names of such plant materials, the proposed irrigation plan and estimated planting schedule. Additional landscaping guidelines established for the proposed Project include: o Graded areas not utilized for buildings, driveways, parking areas, recreational facilities, or walks would be hydroseeded. o Views toward surface parking lots would be screened from adjacent major public streets, plazas and pedestrian walkways by the use of berms, landscaping and/or walls or other architectural devices. o Street trees appropriate to the location and approved by the Department of Public Works would be planted at a minimum of one for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage and would be in a minimum 15-gallon container and eight feet in height at the time of planting. o Landscape and planted areas would be evenly distributed throughout surface parking areas and would be provided at maximum intervals of 50 feet with a tree ratio of one tree for each six parking spaces. o Include rest areas, landscape buffers, courts, or canopies accented with street furnishings and pedestrian-scaled lighting throughout the Project. o Landscaping within the new development would soften and buffer the edge of of the property from the adjacent uses, as well as public rights-of-way. o Choice and placement of landscape and hardscape materials would provide a welcoming demeanor to the village center and reduce the visual impacts from the developed site to the neighboring areas. o Visual security would be maintained around buildings and between adjacent uses by optimizing development configuration. o All landscaped areas would have a complete water-conserving irrigation system and would incorporate native vegetation and drought tolerant plants. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • The proposed Project would include a comprehensive sign plan, submitted as a separate Planning Application for approval by the Planning Commission, developed to regulate sign areas, heights, lighting, color, and materials, following carefully designed principles and design guidelines formulated to provide an integrated architectural style and theme for the commercial centers. Proposed signage would include, but not be limited to, Project monument signs at main entrances to commercial and residential areas. Signage would be coordinated and designed depending on the type of signage (i.e., Project identification, tenant identification, wayfinding, etc.) and the area of the Project in which the signage is located (i.e., commercial, office or residential), as well as the location of the signage within the Project site (i.e., street edge, point of entry, interior, etc.). • The proposed comprehensive sign plan would include a comprehensive lighting program to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. The lighting program would incorporate the recommendations of the lightning study, provided in Appendix E, Artificial Lighting Analysis, of this Draft EIR, including: o All lights would be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there would be no light emitted above the horizontal and not much light (generally less than four percent) at angles greater than 75 degrees above the vertical. o Streetlights would be flat-lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level position and rated as “Dark-Sky Friendly” by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy efficient sodium lamps would be used, mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. o Exterior lighting originating on the proposed Project site would be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines. o Advertising signs would be illuminated from above and would be off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise or until a given business is closed for the day, whichever is later. Project Impacts Visual Character The proposed Project is intended to create an inviting community and pedestrian-oriented environment with retail, theater, office, and residential uses. Development of the proposed Project would fundamentally alter the existing visual character of the Project site from a largely undeveloped, underutilized site to an upscale and vibrant commercial and residential center with landscaped pedestrian linkages, recreational open space, and community-serving retail uses aligned in a traditional “main street” orientation, providing opportunities for social, cultural, recreational, and civic interaction within the community. The proposed site plan is guided by numerous design objectives which place a strong focus City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 on aesthetics and visual interest. Elements of the proposed Project, which would contribute to the new visual character on the site, are listed above in Section III under the heading of Project Design Features. The Project will require the City Planning Commission’s approval of development plans prior to development. The Planning Commission has the authority to exercise discretion with respect to architectural design, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among other design features. Additionally, subdivision maps would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure that the subdivision design is consistent with the City Subdivision Ordinance and State of California Subdivision Map Act. Project construction is proposed to occur in three phases commencing as soon as possible following Project approval and continuing until Project buildout, based on market demand. It is anticipated that Project buildout would occur by 2035. The following three phases are anticipated, however, the phases may be developed in any sequence. Opening day development in 2015 would consist of the development of approximately 57 percent (800,000 square feet) of the retail uses on the portion of the site west of Coffee Road and east of the future El Toro Viejo Road; and approximately 33 percent (200,000 square feet) of the proposed office uses on the portion of the site west of Coffee Road and east of the future El Toro Viejo Road. By opening day, the altered visual character of the site would be evident from all primary vantage points highlighted in the “Environmental Setting” subsection, above. The “main street” retail core, which would be approximately 57 percent complete by opening day, would comprise the majority of the development on the site at this time. Additionally, the framework would be laid for the office park components of the Project, each of which would be approximately 33 percent complete at Project opening. Overall, opening day development would change the appearance of the Project site from a largely undeveloped, underutilized site containing a handful of mismatched commercial/industrial uses to a connected, integrated property developed with the primary building blocks of a lively, mixed-use village. The site’s visual character at opening day would be defined by pedestrian improvements, distinctive landscape palettes, a theater, community-serving retail and office uses, residential areas, open-air public spaces, and carefully conceived architectural design and treatments that create an inviting, human-scaled environment offering multiple benefits to the community. Phase II development in 2035 would consist of an additional 600,000 square feet of retail (the remainder of the retail uses) with 200,000 square feet occurring on the portion of the site west of Coffee Road and east of the future El Toro Viejo Road and 400,000 square feet occurring on the portion of the site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF railway; and an additional 200,000 square feet of office space (completing a total of approximately 66 percent of the proposed office uses) on the eastern portion of the site north of the BNSF Railway. Project buildout in 2035 would consist of an additional 200,000 square feet of office space (the remainder of the office uses) on the portion of the site west of Coffee Road and east of the future El Toro Viejo Road; and 425 dwelling units (the entirety of the residential development) on the western portion of the site adjacent to Windsong Street and west of the future El Toro Viejo Road. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The visual character would continue to change through interim development and Project buildout, filling out the overall vision for the site and further connecting the various land use components. As the focal point of the proposed Project, the “main street” retail core would be the first project component to be complete. All development would be visually connected by incorporating buildings, plantings, paving for pedestrians, and other pedestrian treatments and destinations designed around a friendly, walkable urban environment theme by utilizing combinations of landscape, architecture, paseos, gardens, plazas and street plantings. The lifestyle center would reflect a design ambience and amenities such as fountains and street furniture conducive to leisure-time visits and casual browsing. Residential villages west of the lifestyle district would be linked by the main street and to larger retail and office uses east of Coffee Road. Office uses would be linked to the activity of main street by landscaped walkways. Open space areas would provide a buffer between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the south and west. Throughout the three Project phases, the congruity of the various land use components and aesthetic quality of the site would be strengthened as the landscaping and open space vegetation matures. Based on market demand, the location and timing of the retail, office and residential uses planned for within the Project site may vary slightly but would continue to be consistent with the visual character described herein. All final design plans shall be subject to additional review pursuant to the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) overlay zone district. As discussed in Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing uses, recognizing building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting, and other design elements similar to compatible commercial and residential development. The proposed residential densities would be compatible with neighboring residential areas. Development onsite would be subject to City design review and Municipal Code requirements. Maximum building heights on the commercial areas of the site would be 90 feet (approximately six stories), away from existing one-and two-story residential uses to the west and south. Proposed housing at a maximum height of 35 feet (two and one half stories), buffered by landscaping, and would provide an appropriate transition between the existing residential uses and the Project. While the proposed building heights would be taller than existing building heights in the immediate vicinity (with the possible exception of the decommissioned PG&E refinery), the large size of the Project site, along with the strategic use of staggered building elevations, setbacks, landscaped buffers, and building placement placement would allow for the development of the site with taller structures without resulting in an incompatible aesthetic relationship with surrounding uses. Furthermore, the transformation of the site from a vacant and underutilized light industrial site to an urban infill development, consisting of a mix of commercial, residential, and open space uses, would implement important City policy goals and objectives promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. Retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional “main street” to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. As such, the project would contribute to the installation of an aesthetic identity that is envisioned for the area by the MBGP. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As discussed above, the Project area currently lacks a cohesive visual identity due to an incongruous mix and distribution of land uses. Additionally, the sparse landscaping, flatness of the area, and prevalence of industrial infrastructure and vacant land (including the Project site itself) create a scenic environment that can generally be considered lackluster. The proposed Project would contribute to the neighborhood character of the West Bakersfield community by providing a contemporary, fresh architectural design with articulated façades, appropriately scaled to the “main street” design features and pedestrians populating the Project. As such, the proposed Project would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the MBGP, namely those that promote the establishment of new centers, differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character, as the principal focus of development and activity in the City. As such, the proposed Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site, and visual character/quality impacts would be less than significant. Light and Glare The proposed Project would introduce additional sources of lighting and reflective surfaces to the Project site, as compared to the site’s existing conditions. New lighting sources would include outdoor street lighting and security lighting, indoor lighting, signage lighting, and light generated by vehicle headlights. Lighting would be used as a design tool to highlight architectural elements, landscaping, as well as for building tenant and Project signage. Lighting would also provide security and safety in parking areas, service passages, and common areas of the Project. The intent of the lighting design is to contribute to the ambience of the nighttime village center, while providing a general overall level of illumination consistent with customary municipal safety standards. Lighting facilities for surface parking areas, vehicular access ways, and walkways within the Project area would not exceed a height of 40 feet per City Ordinance 17.58.060 (for commercial uses within 50 feet of a residential use, the height of lighting features for surface parking is limited to 15 feet). The Project would implement the recommendations provided in the Artificial Lighting Analysis prepared by Lighting Design Studio, LLC, dated February 2008, provided in Appendix E, Artificial Lighting Analysis, of this Draft EIR, including, but not limited to, the following; • All lights would be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there would be no light emitted above the horizontal and not much light (generally less than four percent) at angles greater than 75 degrees above the vertical. • Streetlights would be flat-lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level position and rated as “Dark-Sky Friendly” by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy efficient sodium lamps would be used, mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. • Exterior lighting originating on the Project site would be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 All lighting, including lighting of parking structures, would be designed to be compatible with surrounding development; directed onto the driveways, walkways and parking and shielded away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way to minimize spillage of the illumination into the surrounding areas and public rights-of-way, and to minimize glare or interference with vehicular traffic. The proposed Project does not include light sources that are atypical of the surrounding urban environment, such as illuminated billboards or light fixtures associated with outdoor sporting events. Likewise, the exterior surfaces of the proposed structures would be constructed with typical surface materials and coatings, similar to those found on comparable developments in Northwest and Southwest Bakersfield. The proposed Project would include a comprehensive lighting program to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. Additionally, various standard lighting design features have been integrated into the proposed site plan, as noted under Project Design Features. The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the following relevant goals and policies from the Public Services and Facilities – Street Lighting Element of the MBGP, as shown in Table IV.D-1, Proposed Project Consistency with Relevant MBGP Goals and Policies Related to Light and Glare, below: Table IV.D-1 Proposed Project Consistency with Relevant MBGP Goals and Policies Related to Light and Glare Goal /Policy Consistency PSF/SL-G-1: Provide uniform and adequate public lighting for all developed and developing portions of the Planning area. Consistent. The proposed lighting plan provides for adequate lighting for all areas within the Project site in accordance with City zoning ordinance provisions pertaining to lighting standards. PSF/SL-G-5: Provide for adequate lighting on public grounds where night use is encouraged. Consistent. Although night use would not be specifically encouraged within the public park component of the proposed Project, the proposed lighting plan nonetheless provides for adequate lighting in this area in accordance with City zoning ordinance provisions pertaining to lighting standards. The proposed retail with night uses would provide adequate lighting per City standards. PSF/SL-P-4: Require developers to install street lighting in all new developments in accord with adopted city standards and county policies. Consistent. The Project will require approval by the City Planning Commission of development plans. The Planning Commission has the authority to exercise discretion with respect to architectural design, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among other design features. Additionally, subdivision maps would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure thatthe subdivision design is consistent with the City Subdivision Ordinance and State of California Subdivision Map Act. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. As noted above, the proposed site plan would be subject to design review to ensure compliance with the specific City zoning ordinances pertaining to lighting standards. Furthermore, the nearest light-sensitive City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 land uses are residential uses located east and south of the Project site, which would be buffered from the site by landscaped corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, and perimeter planting areas in order to avoid light spillover from the Project. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area. Therefore, light and glare impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Notwithstanding this, Mitigation Measure D-1 has been included to further ensure that light and glare impacts remain less than significant. With respect to light impacts on biological resources, see Section IV.I, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR within the same viewshed as the proposed Project have the potential to combine with the proposed Project and result in cumulative aesthetic impacts. There is one potential development that may be viewed in juxtaposition with the proposed Project. This project is Tentative Tract T6853R (GPA/ZC 05-1448).1 This project, sponsored by Balfanz Homes, is a 225-lot residential subdivision on 51.31 acres (approximately 4 DU/acre) located on Langley Avenue off Calloway Drive.2 The southeastern corner of the Balfanz site abuts the northwestern corner of the proposed Project site. Like the proposed Project, the related projects constitute infill of residential and commercial/retail land uses in an area with compatible surrounding development, in accordance with MBGP policies for the area. Also like the proposed Project, the related projects’ site plans would be subject to the City’s design review procedures to ensure consistency with the City’s ordinances, policies, and standards related to architectural design, building heights, setback, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among others. Given the City’s design reviews, sufficient consideration would be integrated into the related projects’ approval process that would preclude adverse impacts with regard to visual character and light and glare. As the proposed Project unto itself would have less than significant impacts to visual character and light and glare, the additional changes brought about by the related projects in conjunction with the proposed Project would yield less than significant cumulative impacts. Additionally, as discussed in detail in Section IV.B, Urban Decay, of this Draft EIR, the forecasted growth in market demand is sufficiently strong to support the proposed Project along with existing retail 1 City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Development Services Department, Cumulative Projects Map as of 9-17-09, website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/development_maps/, September 17, 2009. 2 City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Development Services Department, Active Tentative Tracts Map as of 9-15-09, website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/development_maps/, September 17, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.D. Aesthetics Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 developments and other proposed related projects without creating conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the existing retail base. As determined in the analysis, urban decay would not occur and visual deterioration would not negatively impact the community or the environment as a result of urban decay; as such cumulative impacts associated with urban decay would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES With implementation of the Project Design Features listed in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to aesthetics, no mitigation measures are required. However, the following mitigation measures are recommended, which reflects existing design requirements and/or good planning principles, and which would further reduce the proposed Project’s less than significant impacts: D-1. All on-site lighting shall be designed to meet the City’s current safety, security, and design standards. D-2. A signage plan shall be prepared pursuant to City of Bakersfield requirements and shall be subject to future approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (“C of O”) for each phase of the Project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The incorporation of Mitigation Measures D-1 and D-2 would ensure that the proposed Project continues to have a less than significant impact with respect to aesthetics. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS E. GEOLOGY/SOILS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to describe the geologic and seismic setting of the Project area, identify potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project and where necessary, recommend mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts. This section is based on the Geologic and Soils Study prepared for the Project by Kleinfelder, Inc., February 28, 2008, which is included as Appendix G, Geologic and Soils Study, to this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Geology The proposed Project site lies in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Basin Province within the southern portion of the Great San Joaquin Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great San Joaquin Valley is a nearly flat northwest-to southeast-trending basin approximately 450 miles long by 50 miles wide. The basin is situated between the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east and the Coast Range Mountains on the west. Both of these mountain ranges were initially formed by uplifts, which occurred during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of geologic time (greater than 65 million years ago). Renewed uplift began in the Sierra Nevada Mountains during late Tertiary time (approximately two million years ago) and is continuing today. The deepest and oldest of the sediments that fill the basin are marine sediments deposited before the uplift of the Coast Range. A mix of marine and continental sediments was deposited over these older, marine sediments as seas advanced and retreated in the San Joaquin Valley. The sediments closest to the surface are the most recently deposited sediments in the basin and are continental deposits consisting of alluvial fan, flood-basin, lake, and marsh deposits. Refer to Figure IV.E-1, Regional Geology. Site Geology and Soils Geology The majority of the native sediments in the vicinity of the proposed Project site are Quaternary aged alluvial fan deposits. These sediments are described as typically consisting of fine to coarse-grained sediments deposited from streams emerging from the eastern highlands. In this instance, sediments are City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 from the Kern River. The depth to bedrock is not known but is believed to be greater than 500 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the proposed Project site. Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), has currently mapped the proposed Project site on Sheets 30 and 38 as primarily Wasco sandy loam, with a small area in the northwestern portion of the site consisting of Cajon loamy sand. These soils are on recent alluvial fan deposits of the Kern River and were formed from granitic material. Geotechnical exploration for Coffee Road, Calloway Drive, and other local grade separations in the site vicinity encountered primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands to in excess of 60 feet bgs during explorations. Based on this existing data, the proposed Project site is anticipated to be underlain by interbedded layers of medium dense to dense granular soils. Geotechnical explorations completed in the site vicinity encountered primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands in excess of 60 feet. Soil conditions on the proposed Project site are anticipated to be fairly consistent across the site. Information provided by the NRCS indicates the Cajon soils are sandy soils with minimal fines (small grained materials) while the Wasco soils can contain 25 to 50 percent non plastic fines (with low shrink swell potential). Both soils have low corrosive potential to concrete and moderate to high corrosion potential for uncoated steel. Expansive soils are not anticipated on site based on NRCS data. Site Soil Profile Type The site soil profile for the proposed Project site, based on Table 16A-J of the 2001 CBC, is Soil Profile Type SD. Soil Profile Type SD is defined as a soil profile consisting of stiff soils with shear wave velocity between 180 and 360 meters per second (600 to 1,200 feet per second), or standard penetration test (SPT) N1(60) equals 15-50, or undrained shear strength (Su) equals 1000-2000 pounds per square foot for the upper 30 meters (100 feet). Groundwater The spring 2004 State Department of Water Resources Map of groundwater elevations in the area indicate groundwater levels of approximately 100 feet bgs (between 63 and 115 feet bgs in 2006). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards Fault Rupture An active fault is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time (since roughly 1800) or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (10,000 years ago to present). The terms “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” are now used in place of the term “potentially active” by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as criteria for classifying faults under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active fault” is a fault that shows evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches, while a “well-defined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally refers to a fault that has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 1.7 million years old). The southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley and the proposed Project vicinity comprise a region characterized by few active faults and relatively low seismic activity compared to the bordering Coast Range and Sierra Nevada Mountains. Locations of the active and potentially active faults in the area with respect to the proposed Project site are shown in Figure IV.E-2, Area Fault Map. As shown in the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) in Figure VIII-2, the proposed Project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults traverse the site or are within the immediate proposed Project vicinity. The potential for fault rupture is considered low because the proposed Project site is not within 500-feet of a known active fault. Ground Shaking The proposed Project site is located approximately 30 kilometers (km) northwest of the White Wolf fault and 41 kilometers north of the Pleito Thrust. Seismic activity on these faults may cause ground shaking at the site. Other significant faults in the region within about 100 km of the proposed Project site, along with their seismic parameters, are listed in Table IV.E-1, Regional Faults. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.E-1 Regional Faults Fault Name Fault Length (km) Approx. Distance to Site (km) Magnitude of Maximum Earthquake Slip Rate (mm/yr) Recurrence Interval (yr) White Wolf 67 30 7.3 2.0 839 Pleito Thrust 44 41 7.0 2.0 706 San Andreas-1857 345 55 7.8 34.0 206 San Andreas Carrizo 145 55 7.7 34.0 ---Big Pine 41 62 6.9 0.8 984 Garlock West 98 62 7.3 6.0 1000 San Andreas-Chalome 62 71 7.3 34.0 437 San Gabriel 72 76 7.2 1.0 1264 San Juan 68 83 7.1 1.0 1338 Santa Ynez East 68 89 7.1 2.0 669 San Andreas-Mojave 99 92 7.6 30.0 550 Mission Ridge-Arroyo Parida-Santa Ana 69 96 7.2 0.4 1076 San Cayetano 42 97 7.0 6.0 150 Garlock East 156 97 7.5 7.0 1000 Notes: Magnitude of Maximum Earthquake is the estimation of an earthquake magnitude by using the seismic moment, which is a measure of an earthquake size utilizing rock rigidity, amount of slip, and area of rupture. Source: Kleinfelder, Inc., November 2007. Peak Ground Acceleration Peak ground accelerations have been developed for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and the design earthquake within 10 km of the proposed Project site. The MCE is defined as the ground motion that has a two percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return period of about 2,475 years) or maximum level of motion which ever may be expected at the site within the known geological framework. The design earthquake is defined as ground motions equal to 2/3 of the MCE (return period of about 950 years). A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was conducted to estimate the peak ground accelerations for the MCE and design earthquake. These analyses involve the selection of an appropriate predictive relationship to estimate the ground motion parameters, and, through probabilistic methods, determination of peak accelerations. Figure IV.E-1 Regional Geology Source: Kleinfelder, 4/16/07. SITE City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. Figure IV.E-2 Area Fault Map Source: Kleinfelder, 4/16/07. S olids P ond R oad 168 Milk B arn S ite SITE City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The estimated peak ground acceleration (in units of gravity, g) for the proposed Project site is between 0.32 and 0.48 g as shown in Table IV.E-2, Peak Ground Acceleration, in addition to the corresponding return period and annual probability of occurrence. The Safety Element of the MBGP has identified the “Maximum Credible Bedrock Acceleration” in the Bakersfield area as 0.28 to 0.45 g. The estimated peak ground acceleration calculated for the proposed Project site is just outside this range. Table IV.E-2 Peak Ground Acceleration Event Return Period (years) Probability of Occurrence Annual Probability of Exceedance Peak Horizontal Acceleration (gravity) Design Earthquake 950 5% in 50 years 0.0011 0.32 MCE 2,475 2% in 50 years 0.0004 0.48 Source: Kleinfelder, Inc., November 2007. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, loading, such as that imposed by earthquakes. When seismic ground-shaking occurs, the soil is subject to seismic shear stresses that may cause the soil to undergo deformations. If the soil undergoes virtually unlimited deformation without developing resistance, it is said to have liquefied. When soils consolidate during and following liquefaction, ground settlement occurs. In order for liquefaction and possible associated settlement of soils due to ground shaking to occur, it is generally accepted that four conditions will exist: • The subsurface soils are in a relatively loose state, • The soils are saturated, • The soils are non-plastic, and • Ground shaking is of sufficient intensity to act as a triggering mechanism. Geologic age also influences the potential for liquefaction. Sediments deposited within the past few thousand years are generally much more susceptible to liquefaction than older Holocene sediments; Pleistocene sediments are even more resistant; and pre-Pleistocene sediments are generally immune to liquefaction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The proposed Project site lies in a relatively low to moderate seismic region. Based on the potential for ground shaking, the anticipated local soils in the area, existing information of subsurface conditions in the proposed Project area, and anticipated depths to groundwater, the potential for liquefaction and associated settlement or bearing loss is considered low. Subsidence Land subsidence is the gradual local settling or sinking of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence is typically the result of gas, oil, or water extraction, hydrocompaction, or peat oxidation and not the result of a landslide or ground failure. Due to petroleum and groundwater extraction withdrawal throughout the proposed Project area, there is a potential for subsidence to occur. As an example in a regional context, the extensive pumping of groundwater has resulted in land subsidence in the western and southern portions of California’s Central Valley. More locally, the southern portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area has been undergoing gradual land subsidence with up to four feet of subsidence over 40 years. However, the amount of petroleum withdrawal in Kern County is too small of an amount to result in substantial subsidence. The State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) monitors subsidence in oil and gas fields and regulates oil and gas withdrawal. If subsidence is noted, remediation is accomplished by raising the water table by injection or reduction of groundwater withdrawal. With monitoring and remediation activities in place, the potential for subsidence at the proposed Project site is low. Dynamic Compaction Dynamic compaction occurs when seismic activities create vibrations that cause temporary liquefaction of the underlying stratum. As such, dynamic compaction typically occurs in loose granular material or uncompacted uncompacted fill soils, neither of which are anticipated to be present on the proposed Project site. Risk of dynamic compaction is believed to be very low. Dam Failure The Isabella Dam, which is located 40 miles northeast of Bakersfield, consists of a main dam and an auxiliary dam. The main earthfill dam is 185 feet high and 1,725 feet long and the auxiliary earthfill structure is 100 feet high and 3,275 feet long. The gross capacity of both dams is approximately 570,000 acre feet of water. The Isabella Dam is regularly maintained and inspected by the Army Corp of Engineering to ensure continued structural integrity. The dam is built near a major earthquake fault and if an earthquake were to occur, it could result in a break in the dam. This could result in a release of all the water stored behind the dam, which would flood 60 square miles of Bakersfield including the proposed Project site. Flood levels could reach up to 30 feet in some portions of the City; however, the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project site is on the opposite side of the City from the dam and flood levels are not likely to reach 30 feet. The flood inundation map prepared by Kern County shows the inundation area and the time-step of flood arrival assuming a full reservoir and full breaking of both dams (refer to Figure IV.E-3, Isabella Dam Inundation Area). Under this scenario, the proposed Project site east of Coffee Road is located partially within the six-hour inundation zone and partially with the eight-hour inundation zone. The portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road is located within the eight-hour inundation zone. Thus, flooding on the proposed Project site would not occur until approximately 6 to 8 hours after dam failure, should failure occur. The MBGP indicates that the likelihood of the dam failing entirely is one day in 10,000 years. A flood evacuation plan plan has been developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, if necessary. Slope Stability Strong ground shaking has the potential for activating landslides on hillsides and inducing lateral spread on sloping ground, slope failures on creek banks (lurch cracking) and tension cracking in areas underlain by loose, low density soil such as uncompacted fill. Because the proposed Project site is relatively level, soils are anticipated to be dense granular. In addition, there are no known areas of extensive fill within the proposed Project site, so, the potential for slope failures or lateral spread from earthquake-induced ground shaking is considered to be very low. Although considered unlikely, the Friant-Kern Canal levee located along the eastern property boundary could possibly experience localized seismically induced bank deformation. This would likely be confined to within three to five feet of the top of bank and is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Setting California Building Code The State of California adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) (Part 2 of Title 24) on January 30, 2007. The 2007 CBC is based on the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). These regulations are effective January 1, 2008 and include provisions for site work, demolition, and construction, which includes excavation and grading, as well as provisions for foundations, retaining walls and expansive and compressible soils. Local agencies must ensure that development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBC. Cities and counties have the ability to adopt additional building standards beyond the CBC. The IBC includes changes to the structural and nonstructural seismic requirements included in the CBC. Additionally, the IBC includes the latest design standards for concrete, steel, masonry, and wood construction. The IBC code does not base design on zones but on specific distances to faults. Table IV.E-3, IBC (2006) Seismic Parameters, provides the 2006 IBC seismic design parameters for the proposed Project site. Table IV.E-3 IBC (2006) Seismic Parameters Parameter Value 2006 IBC Reference SS 1.136 g Section 1613.5.1 S1 0.412g Section 1613.5.1 Soil Type D Table 1613.5.2 Fa 1.046 Table 1613.5.3(1) Fv 1.588 Table 1613.5.3(2) SMS 1.188g Section 1613.5.3 SM1 0.655g Section 1613.5.3 SDS 0.792g Section 1613.5.4 SD1 0.437g Section 1613.5.4 Source: Kleinfelder, Inc., November 2007. Figure IV.E-3 Isabella Dam Inundation Area Source: Kern County Online Mapping System. Feet 0 6500 PROJECT SITE Legend City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page left intentionally blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The MBGP Safety Element has identified various implementation programs with respect to fault rupture. These programs specify various requirements, including: • Detailed geologic investigations are to be conducted, in conformance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), for all construction designed for human occupancy in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Study Zone; • Construction of buildings for human occupancy within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault is prohibited; • Plans and permits for installation of major lifeline components such as highways, utilities, and petroleum or chemical pipelines are to incorporate design features to accommodate potential fault movement in areas of active faults without prolonged disruption of an essential service or threat to health and safety; • Field information is to be developed as part of any CEQA investigations, and geologic reports by the City and County geologists should be kept current and accessible for use in report preparation, geologic reviews and policy development. Active faults may potentially exist outside of the Alquist Priolo and Special Studies Zones. As a result, development of critical and important facilities proposed outside of these zones would require additional fault investigation. The Safety Element has specified a policy that requires that the development of critical facilities be supported by documentation of thorough hazard investigation. Critical facilities are defined by the California Seismic Safety Commission as the following three basic types of facilities: • “Essential facilities,” whose continued functioning is necessary to maintain public health and safety following a disaster. These facilities include fire and police stations, communication facilities, emergency operation centers, hospitals, administrative buildings, and schools designated as mass care shelters. Also included are key transportation facilities and utility “lifeline” facilities such as water supply, sewage disposal, oil and gas storage facilities and transmission lines, and electric generation stations and transmission lines. • Those facilities where damage or failure could pose hazards to life and property well beyond their immediate vicinity. This category includes such facilities as dams and reservoirs, petroleum storage facilities, and nuclear waste processing and storage facilities. • Public or private structures for housing or assembly of large populations, where failure could pose hazards to life and property within the structures and in their immediate vicinity. These high City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 occupancy facilities include schools, prisons, coliseums, theaters, conference and convention facilities, high-rise buildings, and similar facilities used by large numbers of people. Based on these criteria, the theater proposed as part of the Project would be considered a critical facility. Further, the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan has identified various implementation programs to be carried out by the City affecting the seismic safety of critical facilities. These programs include: • Detailed site studies for fault rupture potential are to be conducted as background to the design process for critical facilities under City and County discretionary approval; • Existing critical facilities are to be reviewed for any significant siting, design or construction problems that would make them vulnerable in an earthquake; • The findings shall be incorporated into emergency operations plans as well as addressed in longerterm programs of facilities upgrading or relocation; and • Construction of critical facilities is prohibited within 300 feet of the trace of an active fault. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Readily available technical publications and maps were reviewed to summarize the general soil and geologic setting of the site, identification and description of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) soil types and typical properties, description of fault zones or traces in the vicinity having the potential to impact the site, identification of geologic hazard or seismic hazard zones which may impact the site, and discussion of potential impact of soil expansiveness and/or mitigation measures. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to geological resources if it were to result in one or more of the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (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 an 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 California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property. (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. As concluded in the Initial Study, provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not result in impacts associated with landslides or septic tanks, and therefore, no further analysis of these issues is included in this EIR. All of the other issues addressed by the significance thresholds are analyzed below under separate subheadings. Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to geology and soils. Project Impacts Fault Rupture As noted, the proposed Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active or potentially active faults cross or are located on the proposed Project site. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 potential for fault-related surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and potential Project impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. Ground Shaking During the life of the proposed Project, the site is likely to experience at least one earthquake that may produce potentially damaging ground shaking. However, the applicant would be required to design and construct the proposed Project in conformance with the most recently adopted CBC/IBC design parameters. Conformance with current CBC requirements, and future IBC requirements, to the extent they are implemented by the City, would reduce the potential for structures on the proposed Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Thus, potential Project impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction Based on the potential for ground shaking, anticipated soils, and anticipated depths to groundwater, the potential for liquefaction and associated settlement or bearing loss is considered low. However, if proposed Project soils are not as anticipated, there is a potential for significant impacts associated with liquefaction. Mitigation Measure E-1 is proposed to reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. Subsidence As noted above, the potential for subsidence at the proposed Project site is considered low, and the City actively monitors groundwater extraction to prevent subsidence. Additionally, the proposed Project would comply with the CBC, and future IBC requirements, to the extent they are implemented by the City, which are designed to assure safe construction and includes building foundation requirements appropriate to the conditions present at the proposed Project site. Therefore, potential Project impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant. Dynamic Compaction As noted, the potential for dynamic compaction on site is considered to be low. However, if proposed Project conditions are not consistent with anticipated conditions, there is potential for significant impacts associated with dynamic compaction. Mitigation Measure E-1 is proposed to reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Dam Failure The proposed Project site is located within the Lake Isabella Dam inundation area. Flood levels could reach up to 30 feet in some portions of the City; however, the proposed Project site is on the opposite side of the City, therefore, flood levels are not likely to reach 30 feet. Serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately 6 to 8 hours after dam failure, should failure occur. The lag time between failure and flooding on site would reduce the potential for injury or death from dam failure; however, property damage could occur. Mitigation Measure E-2 is proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure E-2 in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, potential Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Slope Stability As noted, the potential for slope failures or lateral spreading from earthquake-induced ground shaking on site is considered to be low. However, if proposed Project conditions are not consistent with anticipated soil conditions, there is potential for significant impacts associated with lateral spreading. Mitigation Measure E-1 is proposed to reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. Soil Erosion During construction, grading would expose soil for a limited time, allowing for possible erosion. Although proposed Project development has the potential to result in erosion of soils during site preparation and construction activities, erosion would be reduced by implementation of standard City erosion controls imposed during site preparation and grading activities. Furthermore, the potential for soil erosion during the operation of the proposed Project is relatively low due to the fact that the proposed Project site would be almost entirely paved over and/or landscaped. All grading activities would require grading permits, which would include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. With implementation of the applicable grading and building permit requirements and the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, potential Project impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less than significant level. Expansive Soil As noted, expansive soils are not anticipated. However, if proposed Project conditions are not consistent with anticipated conditions, there is potential for significant impacts associated with expansive soil. Mitigation Measure E-1 is proposed to reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Consistency with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets forth goals and policies to ensure public safety during seismic events and potential geologic effects, including liquefaction and subsidence. The applicable goals and policies are discussed below, in Table IV.E-4, Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies. Table IV.E-4 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies Safety Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Seismic Safety Goal 1: Substantially reduce the level of death, injury, property damage, economic and social dislocation and disruption of vital services that would result from earthquake damage. Consistent. The proposed Project design would be required to undergo review by the City of Bakersfield. Compliance with City Ordinances and building code code requirements would reduce potential Project impacts related to earthquakes to a less than significant level. Goal 7: Protect land uses from the risk of dam failure inundation including the assurances that: the functional capabilities of essential facilities are available in the event of a flood; hazardous materials are not released; effective measures for mitigation of dam failure inundation are incorporated into the design of critical facilities; and the rapid and orderly evacuations of populations in the inundation area will occur. Consistent. Mitigation Measure E-2 is proposed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the site will have limited hazardous materials (e.g. cleaning solvents) on site. Certain proposed Project facilities (e.g. movie theatre) would include emergency evacuation plans in addition to the City’s flood evacuation plan. Policy 2: Require that the siting and development of critical facilities under discretionary approval by the City Council and Board of Supervisors be supported by documentation of thorough hazard investigations relating to site selection, preconstruction site investigations, and the application of the most current professional standards for seismic design. Consistent. With implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 and E-2, potential seismic hazards impacts to critical facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the proposed Project would conform to City Ordinances and building code requirements for seismic design. Policy 4: Encourage critical facilities in dam inundation areas to develop and maintain plans for safe shut-down and efficient evacuation from their facilities, as appropriate to the degree of flood hazard for each facility. Consistent. Mitigation Measure E-2 is proposed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, certain proposed Project facilities (e.g. movie theatre) would include emergency evacuation plans in addition to the City’s flood evacuation plan. Policy 10: Prohibit development designed for human occupancy within 50 feet of a known active fault and prohibit any building from being placed astride an active fault. Consistent. The proposed Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Zone and is not within 50 feet of a known active fault. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.E-4 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies Safety Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Policy 13: Determine the liquefaction potential at sites in areas of high groundwater prior to development and determine specific mitigation to be incorporated into the foundation design, as necessary to prevent or reduce damage from liquefaction in an earthquake. Consistent. Depth to groundwater at the proposed Project site is approximately 100 feet bgs (between 63 and 115 feet bgs in 2006). The proposed Project site is not located within an area of high groundwater and is therefore not susceptible to liquefaction. Conformance with City Ordinances and applicable building codes would reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, a detailed geotechnical investigation conducted as part of the the final design process shall reflect appropriate recommendations in the proposed Project’s grading and design plans in order to reduce potential liquefaction hazards to a less than significant level. Policy 18: Design discretionary critical facilities located within the potential inundation area for dam failure in order to: mitigate the effects of inundation on the facility; promote orderly shut-down and evacuation (as appropriate); and, prevent on-site hazards from affecting building occupants and the surrounding communities in the event of dam failure. Consistent. Mitigation Measure E-2 is proposed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, certain proposed Project facilities (e.g. movie theatre) would include emergency evacuation plans in addition to the City’s flood evacuation plan. Flooding Goal 1: Minimize hazards to planning area residents resulting from flooding. Consistent. Future residents of the proposed Project site could be impacted because of flooding within the proposed Project site, as it is located within the Lake Isabella Dam Failure Inundation Area. The lag time between failure and flooding on site would reduce the potential for injury or death from dam failure; however, property damage could occur. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure E-2 in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department, potential Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, March 2008. The proposed Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with respect to geology and soils. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.E. Geology/Soils Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Geotechnical impacts related to future development in the City listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would involve hazards associated with site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground-shaking during earthquakes. Implementation of future development of the site and surrounding areas could expose more persons and property to potential impacts due to seismic activity. Seismic and geologic significance would be considered on a project-by-project basis. The impacts would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. The related projects would also be subject to the goals, policies, and implementation measures identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and would be required to conform to City Ordinances and seismic design requirements of applicable building codes similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, cumulative geology and soil impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES E-1. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation shall be completed to confirm specific site conditions and design level geotechnical engineering aspects including the potential for liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope instability, and expansive soil. Recommendations and mitigation identified in this evaluation shall be implemented. E-2. The Project shall incorporate an emergency notification plan in the event of dam failure into the design of the proposed theater in coordination with the City of Bakersfield and shall develop and maintain plans for safe shutdown and efficient evacuation from this facility. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the mitigation measures listed above and compliance with applicable regulations would reduce all potential Project impacts related to geology and soils to a less than significant level. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section describes the hydrologic and water quality setting of the proposed Project site and its vicinity and examines the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project related to surface hydrology, groundwater quantity, and surface water and groundwater quality. This section is based in part on the Drainage Study dated January 21, 2008 and revised October 7, 2009 prepared by PSOMAS (provided as Appendix I), the Water Supply Assessment dated July 2009 prepared by Quad Knopf (provided as Appendix R), and the Water Quality Assessment dated March 11, 2008 (reviewed in October 2009) prepared by Kleinfelder (provided as Appendix H). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate Bakersfield lies within the Central Valley of California, which has rainy winters and dry summers characteristic of a Mediterranean climate. The City has greater temperature extremes than the coast because it is less affected by the moderating influence that the Pacific Ocean has on temperature. Ninety percent of annual rainfall in the City occurs during the period between November and April. Infrequent summer thunderstorms and showers from tropical depressions account for the remaining rainfall. Average annual precipitation in the City is approximately 5.7 inches, which is a relatively small amount. In comparison, the Los Angeles Basin receives an annual average of 14.5 inches, Sacramento receives an average of 17.5 inches per year, and Bishop, which is on the dry eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range (near Death Valley), receives an annual average of 5.4 inches. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Surface Hydrology Regional The proposed Project site lies within the Tulare Lake Basin. This essentially closed basin1 is situated in the topographic horseshoe formed by the Diablo and Temblor Ranges on the west, by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east and southeast. The Tulare Lake Basin encompasses approximately 10.5 million acres, of which approximately 3.25 million acres are in federal ownership. Valley floor lands (i.e., those having a land slope of less than 200 feet per mile) make up slightly less than one-half of the total basin land area. The maximum length and width of the Tulare Lake Basin is about 170 miles and 140 miles, respectively. The valley floor is approximately 40 miles wide near its southern end, and widens to a maximum of 90 miles. The basin is generally a closed system, and only drains north into the San Joaquin River Basin in years of extreme rainfall. Between 40 percent and 50 percent of the basin-wide streamflow occurs from November to March; the greater proportion of the streamflow comes from snowmelt stored in upstream reservoirs, which is not released until later in the spring. Tulare Lake Basin is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQB), which is responsible for designing and implementing the Tulare Basin Plan. The Tulare Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for bodies of water, and sets numerical (quantitative) and/or narrative (qualitative) water quality objectives necessary to protect the beneficial uses. The Basin Plan includes implementation provisions, programs, and policies to protect all waters in the region. The proposed Project site infiltrates into the Kern County groundwater subbasin. According to the Tulare Basin Plan, beneficial functions associated with this groundwater subbasin include the following: municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural supply, industrial service and process supply, water contact and non-contact recreation, and wildlife habitat. Local At a more local level, the proposed Project site lies within the Kern River Watershed, which is the largest watershed in California. Fed by snow, the Kern River, whose source is at the base of Mt. Whitney, runs through the Sierra Nevada Mountains before letting out in the Central Valley and traversing the City. The Kern River and the Western Divide control surface hydrology, for the most part. Several minor streams flow to the Kern River, which exists as a contained basin except in years of high runoff, when the historical river flowed north into Tulare Lake. Many small canals distribute Kern River water. Designated “beneficial uses” in the Central Valley portion of the Kern River include municipal, domestic, 1 A closed basin is a land basin where all surface runoff remains within the basin, with no natural surface outlets . City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 agricultural, and industrial service and processes supply, hydropower generation, water contact and noncontact water recreation, wildlife habitat, warm freshwater habitat, rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat, and groundwater recharge. Kern River flows have been regulated since completion of the Isabella Dam in 1953. Proposed Project Site The majority of the site, approximately 200 acres of the 255-acre proposed Project site, is currently vacant. West of Coffee Road, the proposed Project site slopes generally to the southwest, toward the intersection of Brimhall Road and Windsong Street. Portions of the proposed Project site on the east side of Coffee Road and south of the railroad tracks slope generally to the east towards the Friant-Kern Canal, while the area north of the railroad tracks slopes generally to the south towards the railroad tracks. There are no natural creeks, streams, ponds, or lakes on the proposed Project site. Two drainage areas owned and operated by the City are present on the proposed Project site. One drainage area is on the west side of Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road within a PG&E easement. This drainage area captures storm water runoff via a storm drain system from the Coffee Road railroad overpass on the north, to the intersection of Brimhall and Coffee Roads on the south. The other drainage area is within the PG&E transmission corridor north of Brimhall Road. As discussed in Section IV.E, Geology/Soils, of this Draft EIR, the Lake Isabella Dam, located 40 miles northeast of Bakersfield, is built near a major earthquake fault. The Lake Isabella Dam is regularly maintained and inspected by the Army Corp of Engineers to ensure structural integrity. However, if an earthquake were to occur, it could possibly result in a break in the dam. This could result in a release of water stored behind the dam, which could flood 60 square miles of Bakersfield including the proposed Project site if the dam was filled to capacity. Flood levels could reach up to 30 feet in some portions of the City; however, the proposed Project site is on the opposite side of the City away from the dam and flood levels, therefore, are not likely to reach 30 feet. The proposed Project site east of Coffee Road is located partially within the six-hour inundation zone and partially within the eight-hour inundation zone. The portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road is located within the eight-hour inundation zone. Serious on-site flooding would not occur until approximately 6 to 8 hours after dam failure, should failure occur. The MBGP indicates that the likelihood of the dam failing entirely is one day in 10,000 years. A flood evacuation plan has been developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property in the event of a dam failure. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Kern County, California Community—Panel Number 060075-1005-B, the proposed Project site is not City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 located within a designated 100-year flood plain. However, a small portion of the site at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coffee and Brimhall is within the 500-year flood zone designation.2 Groundwater Hydrology The proposed Project is located in the Kern County Sub-Basin (Sub-Basin) of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin), which is situated within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Sub-Basin encompasses 1,950,000 acres. Hydrogeology The shallow to intermediate depth water-bearing zones of the Sub-Basin consist of Tertiary-to Quaternary-aged continental deposits. These deposits comprise the following geologic formations, from oldest to youngest: Olcese and Santa Margarita Formations, Tulare Formation in the western Sub-Basin and the Kern River Formation in the eastern Sub-Basin, older alluvium and stream deposits, and younger alluvium and coeval flood basin deposits. Groundwater in the Sub-Basin occurs primarily in an unconfined aquifer represented by the Tulare and Kern River Formations. The Corcoran Clay Member of these formations is present at depths of 300 to 650 feet throughout much of the central and western portions of the Sub-Basin, and where present, acts as a confining layer to underlying groundwater. Groundwater movement is also impeded in some areas of the Sub-Basin by a number of faults, folds, angular unconformities, and contacts with consolidated rock. The thickest portion of the unconfined aquifer is along the eastern margin of the Sub-Basin. According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) 1977 groundwater model of Kern County, specific yields for the unconfined aquifer range from 8.0 to 19.5 percent of aquifer volume and average 12.4 percent. The DWR San Joaquin District office estimates specific yields for these formations to range from 5.3 to 19.6 percent and average 11.8 percent. Regional Groundwater The DWR maintains a database of groundwater levels throughout California. According to the DWR, the average Sub-Basin water level was essentially unchanged from 1970 to 2000. However, overall, local water level changes did occur during this period. Between 1970 and 1978, the Sub-Basin water levels 2 Kern County Interactive GIS mapping application, on the web at http://www.co.kern. ca.us/planning City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 experienced a cumulative decrease of 15 feet, followed by a 15-foot cumulative increase during the period 1978 through 1988, and a cumulative decrease of 8 feet through 1997. Localized changes ranged from increases of more than 30 feet at the southeast valley margin and in the Lost Hills/Buttonwillow areas to decreases of more than 25 and 50 feet in the Bakersfield and McFarland/Shafter areas, respectively. Decreases in groundwater elevations typically result from decreased precipitation and groundwater extraction in excess of groundwater recharge. Aquifers in the Basin are generally hundreds of feet thick, and wells deeper than 1,000 feet are common. Well yields throughout the Basin typically range between 300 and 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Well yields in the Sub-Basin average 1,200 to 1,500 gpm. Groundwater Recharge Groundwater accounts for 41 percent of the Region’s total annual water supply and 35 percent of all water use in California. The extensive pumping of groundwater has resulted in land subsidence in the western and southern portions of California’s Central Valley. The southern portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area has been undergoing gradual land subsidence with up to four feet of subsidence over 40 years. No incidences of subsidence have occurred in the proposed Project area. Groundwater recharge in the Sub-Basin occurs through stream seepage in the eastern portion of the basin and the Kern River, and to a greater extent, through applied irrigation water. To increase groundwater storage, the City of Bakersfield acquired the 2,800-acre Kern River recharge facility (“2800 Acres”) in December 22, 1976 and began its operation in 1978. Excess Kern River and other waters are introduced and allowed to percolate into the ground and stored for later extraction and used to maintain water levels and prevent subsidence. This facility has more than 199,304 acre-feet of groundwater accrued, available for the City’s use during dry years. As of 2000, seven recharge projects with a combined storage volume of 3.9 million acre-feet contained more than 3 million acre-feet of water. The cumulative increase in the City’s groundwater elevations that began in 1978 is most likely attributable to recharge from the Kern River and other artificial recharge facilities. Groundwater recharge programs in the southern Basin have recharged millions of acre-feet of water for future use and have helped prevent subsidence from occurring. The groundwater aquifers in the City service area are recharged through several sources including the Kern River Channel, precipitation runoff, canal seepage, and spreading/banking. Additionally, wastewater reclamation will be an additional source of recharge upon completion of the Waste Water Treatment Plant No. 3 expansion, estimated to be completed in April 2010. Surface water supply sources include the Kern River, the Central Valley Project (via the Friant-Kern Canal), and the State Water Project (via the Cross Valley Canal). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Surface Water Quality As noted, there are no known natural surface water features on or adjacent to the proposed Project site. Two drainage areas provide retention of surface water runoff but no water quality treatment. The site is bounded by the Friant-Kern Canal to the east and is approximately 1 mile north of the Kern River. Approximately 245 acres of the site is currently pervious surface that allows surface water to infiltrate to groundwater. Surface water runoff from the existing 10 acres of impervious surfaces is stored in the two retention areas on the proposed Project site. With the use of these retention areas, surface water run off from the site is minimal and the quality of the runoff from the proposed Project site is good (i.e., does not contain known contaminants). Therefore, the site is not impacting water quality in downstream surface water bodies or in below-ground aquifers. Groundwater Quality Regional Groundwater quality in the region is generally suitable for agricultural and urban uses. Some localized areas, typically associated with agricultural land uses, demonstrate poorer water quality due to high total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, arsenic, and organic compounds. These constituents have not been identified in the groundwater beneath the Project site. The average TDS content of groundwater in the Sub-Basin is 400 to 450 milligrams per liter with a range of 150 to 5,000 milligrams per liter. Higher TDS occur along the west side of the Basin due to recharge from streams flowing through the saline marine sediments of the Coast Range. In the trough or axis of the Basin, high TDS occur as a result of evaporation related to poor drainage. High nitrates resulting primarily from agricultural activities have historically occurred in isolated areas of the Basin, including areas near the town of Shafter. High arsenic concentrations occur in localized areas, generally related to lakebeds. High arsenic has been detected in groundwater in the Tulare, Kern, and Buena Vista Lake areas. Agricultural pesticides and herbicides have been detected primarily on the east side of the Basin, where groundwater is shallower and soils are more permeable. Industrial contaminants, primarily solvents, have been detected in groundwater where these chemicals have been used and beneath landfills. Where the confining Corcoran Clay is present, primarily in the western and central portions of the Basin, the quality of water below the clay is better than that of the water above it. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 In the eastern portion of the Basin, the shallower groundwater is primarily a calcium bicarbonate-type. Sodium concentrations increase with depth. Bicarbonate concentrations decrease, and sulfate and chloride concentrations increase in the western portion of the Basin, such that water on the west side is primarily sodium sulfate-to calcium-sodium sulfate-type. Municipal Water Supply At the time the Urban Water Management Plan Update was published (November 2007), the City derived all of its delivered water supply from groundwater wells located within its Domestic Water System service area. At that time, there were 58 wells, six water tanks, and 25 booster pumps in operation. The system has over 35,000 service connections and is 100 percent metered. In May 2007, the California Water Service Company began operating a new water treatment plant (WTP) in northwest Bakersfield at the intersection of Norris Road and Coffee Road. The Northwest WTP was funded and constructed by Cal Water. The Northwest WTP treats surface water from the Kern River delivered through the Beardsley Canal for use within the City’s service area. In addition, the City, in coordination with the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) and Cal Water, constructed a new water transmission main (northwest feeder line), which conveys treated surface water from the KCWA’s Henry Garnett WTP to northwest Bakersfield within ID#4 boundaries. Cal Water maintains a sampling and testing program, and water supplies are disinfected as recommended by the California Department of Health Services. Water Quality/Consumer Confidence Reports are mailed to City of Bakersfield Water Service customers annually. According to the 2005 report, no water quality violations were detected for the reporting period 2003 through 2005. As noted, groundwater aquifers in the City service area are recharged through several sources sources including the Kern River Channel, precipitation runoff, canal seepage, and spreading/banking. Additionally, wastewater reclamation will be an additional source of recharge upon completion of the Waste Water Treatment Plant No. 3 expansion, estimated to be completed in April 2010. Surface water supply sources include the Kern River, the Central Valley Project (via the Friant-Kern Canal), and the State Water Project (via the Cross Valley Canal). The City plans to use additional treated surface water as the service area continues to grow. Proposed Project Site Dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbons, including liquid phase hydrocarbons have been detected in groundwater underlying a portion of the proposed site east of Coffee Road. A discussion of investigations and remedial actions to address soil and groundwater contamination at the proposed Project site is included in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR and summarized below. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The dissolved and liquid phase petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater beneath the northeastern portion of the site were released during operation of a refinery facility, which formerly occupied approximately 45.7 acres on the northeast portion of the Project site. Numerous documents have been filed with local and state agencies documenting the investigation and remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) currently provides oversight for the investigation and remedial actions. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells, soil vapor extraction wells, and air sparging wells have been installed at the site. Remedial efforts currently include the operation of a soil vapor extraction system, air sparging systems, liquid petroleum hydrocarbon extraction well systems, and semi-annual groundwater monitoring. The direction of groundwater flow is reported to be to the northwest. The depth to groundwater in the site vicinity during the second half of 2006 gauging period ranged between 63 feet and 115 feet below ground surface (bgs). As of the October 1, 2007 site sampling, the depth to product is no greater than 100 feet bgs. As of January 1, 2008, more than seven million pounds of hydrocarbons had been treated by the vapor extraction system at the site. In addition, more than 12,000 gallons of liquid petroleum hydrocarbons had been removed and treated by groundwater extraction systems at the site. Remedial efforts are continuing on the small portion of the site located east of Coffee Road. Adjacent PG&E Property The decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation at 2401 Coffee Road, north of the site across Coffee Road and the BNSF Railroad tracks appears on multiple published regulatory agency lists. The RWQCB is providing lead regulatory agency oversight for addressing groundwater contamination at this facility. Existing Wells One irrigation well was observed on site during a field reconnaissance for the Phase I assessment conducted in support of this EIR and discussed in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. In addition, there is also a former irrigation well located in the former north tank farm area and two groundwater production wells present at the former Sunland Refinery site. The Sunland Refinery wells, which supplied process water during refinery operation, are currently inactive. Additionally, a Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) map shows two oil wells and one water disposal well located at the site, with approximately 16 abandoned dry hole, oil and gas wells located within one mile of the site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Setting Because there is minimal regulatory oversight of surface hydrology and groundwater quantity, the following regulatory setting discussion pertains primarily to groundwater and surface water quality, although regulations applicable to surface hydrology and groundwater quantity are addressed to the extent such regulations currently exist. Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. It operates on the principle that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit. Permit review is the CWA’s primary regulatory tool. The permits regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials (CWA Section 404), construction-related stormwater discharges discharges (CWA Section 402), and activities that may result in the discharges of pollutants (CWA Section 401) into designated “waters of the United States,” which include oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. As discussed in Section IV.I of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project site does not have any designated waters of the United States or wetlands located within its boundaries. Although the site does not have any waterbodies designated as waters of the United States, and runoff from the proposed Project would not drain directly into any identifiable waters of the United States, CWA sections 401 and 402 are still relevant to the proposed Project, as discharge into downstream waterbodies designated as waters of the United States is still possible. Section 402 is enforced through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan NPDES permits are issued to municipal and industrial dischargers. In compliance with Section 402(p) of the CWA, CWA, the U.S. EPA also established regulations that require that storm water discharges from soil disturbance (excavation, demolition, grading, and clearing) of one acre or more be regulated as an industrial activity and covered by a NPDES permit. Storm water discharges from a construction activity that results in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which is a part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit under the CWA. The California Water Resources Control Board has adopted one statewide general permit for almost all storm water discharges; with the exception of Indian lands and lands within the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Unit. This general permit is implemented and enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. To comply with the permit, landowners initiating construction activities on their properties must: • Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation; • Develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan emphasizing storm water “Best Management Practices;” and • Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their effectiveness. Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act sets drinking water standards throughout the country and is administered by the EPA. These drinking water standards, which are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), are referred to as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR Part 141, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR Part 143. These regulations set maximum contamination levels (MCLs) for substances in drinking water. State Regulations California law related to groundwater hydrology is associated with the pumping of groundwater. Landowners overlying a groundwater basin are permitted to pump their share of groundwater utilizing their overlying rights, so long as these rights have not been legally severed from the land and the groundwater pumping is limited to the landowners’ correlative share (which represents the portion of the water they can pump without adversely impacting other overlying water rights-holders). Usage of groundwater may also be controlled through a judicial adjudication, wherein water rights are partitioned out to the full potential of the basin. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code) The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, embodied in the California Water Code, establishes the principal California legal and regulatory framework for water quality control. The Porter-Cologne Act protects groundwater and surface water for use by the people of the State. The California Water Code authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to implement the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. Under the California Water Code, the State of California is divided into nine regions governed by RWQCBs that, under the guidance and review of the SWRCB, implement and enforce provisions of the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act. Based on the SWRCB procedures, the regional boards develop local water quality City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 control plans. Once approved by the SWRCB, these local plans are incorporated into the California Water Plan. California Code of Regulations, Title 22 The quality of groundwater delivered for public supply is also regulated under the California Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations found in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15 of the California Code of Regulations. These regulations identify primary and secondary drinking water standards for public drinking water supplies in the state. Local Regulations City Standards for Drainage The City of Bakersfield satisfies the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements under the Kern County NPDES permit through implementation of the City’s Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual, Division Two, Standards for Drainage (Chapter 2.1, General). The general purpose of the standards standards are to convey and dispose of water generated by storms, springs, or other sources in such a manner that adjacent improvements, existing or projected, would be free from 10-, 25-, or 100-year storm events. The standards require that each improvement be designed so as not to increase the flow of water onto adjacent properties except as otherwise provided by the standards. Increased flow is permissible by the standards if the City Engineer finds that the developer has furnished downstream facilities of adequate design. The standards require that water be received and discharged at locations that existed prior to development, unless diversion is required as part of a comprehensive drainage plan. If the latter is required, sufficient work is required by the standards to provide all affected properties with the pre-development flood protection levels. Alternatives to the design standards are permissible under the standards, and may be allowed by the City Engineer, if the case’s circumstances reasonably require such to satisfy public interest, and they remain in conformity with the general objectives of the standards. All drainage facilities other than those accepted for maintenance by the City shall be maintained by an entity with taxing powers. The standards require that such an entity be established prior to recordation of the final map, at the expense of the subdivider. The City has approved one pilot project that includes underground retention facilities in various parts of the City. It is City policy to not approve any facility of this type until such a time that it has been determined that these facilities meet the requirements of the City. Until that time, standard procedures would be required. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Specific goals and policies in the MBGP are related to water conservation, balancing competing demands for water, and protecting the quality of groundwater and surface water resources. Implementation programs that are relevant to the proposed Project comprise: (1) supporting the provision of adequate wastewater collection systems and treatment reclamation and disposal facilities that would prevent groundwater degradation by onsite wastewater systems, and (2) supporting additional water conservation measures and programs of benefit to the planning area. Flood Hazard Mitigation In addition to being party to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as administered by FEMA, the City and Kern County participate in the state-mandated Kern River Designated Floodway program, which is administered by the California Department of Water Resources Reclamation Board. The program provides development criteria and issues permits for development within the limits of the Kern River Designated Floodway. The proposed Project site is outside of the Kern River Designated Floodway. Water Conservation The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), General Order No. 103 encourages metered volume sales of water unless specific authorization has been granted otherwise. The City is not under the CPUC, but has patterned its service standards after General Order No. 103, and its water system is metered to all of its service connections except fire hydrants. The City encourages conservation and has adopted a number of ordinances related to water conservation. These ordinances are summarized in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update. These ordinances include: limitations on running water onto sidewalks, public streets, or alleyways; requiring property owners to turn off landscape irrigation water before it overflows into gutters; and an option to discontinue service where negligent or wasteful use of water exists. When water waste is visible, the property owner receives a “Waste of Water Notice.” The City has adopted the California Administrative Code, Title 24, which relates specifically to energy conservation in new building construction, but also includes provisions for low flow fixtures. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Readily available technical publications and maps were reviewed to describe the general existing surface water and groundwater conditions and resources in the area and assesses the potential impacts of the Project with regard to surface and ground water in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to hydrological if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) 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; (b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (c) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; (d) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); (e) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; (h) Place within a 100-year hazard area structures that 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; or (j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As discussed in the Initial Study, provided in Appendix A, no impacts regarding inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required. Project Design Features The following Project Design features with respect to hydrology and water quality and shown in Figure IV.F-1 have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: Surface Hydrology • The proposed Project site is divided into six drainage areas. Four detention/retention basins with two retention approaches would be constructed to accommodate surface water runoff from these areas (refer to Figure IV.F-1). Permanent or temporary detention/retention areas would be constructed as their corresponding drainage area is developed. One approach includes two standard detention/retention areas per the specifications set forth in the City of Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual (Basins 1 and 2). The other approach is two underground retention and percolation areas consisting of half cylinders surrounded by gravel. Either system allows water to percolate into the ground while allowing use of the surface for parking or open space. The City has approved one pilot project that includes underground detention facilities in various parts of the City. It is City policy to not approve any facility of this type until such a time that it has been determined that these facilities meet the requirements of the City. Until that time, standard procedures would be required. Because these facilities would not be constructed for some time, it is anticipated that these facilities would be allowable by the City at the time that they are proposed for construction. However, in the event that the City does not allow underground retention facilities when these facilities would be constructed, the proposed Project would seek other methods to address drainage to the satisfaction of the City. The proposed Project would incorporate the volume of the two existing drainage areas as discussed below. o Basin 1 would provide 3.0 acre-feet of storage capacity in a traditional open retention area. The storm runoff from Area A (approximately 22 acres zoned C2), located east of Coffee Road and north of the BNSF railroad would be conveyed by a storm drain system to Basin 1 in the southeast corner of the site. o Basin 2 would provide 17.1 acre-feet of storage capacity in a traditional open detention/retention area. The storm runoff from Area B (approximately 49 acres zoned C2), Area C (approximately 56 acres zoned CC), and approximately 75 percent of the volume from the existing detention/retention area located west of Coffee Road and north of Brimhall Road (3 acre-feet) would be conveyed to Basin 2. The volume from the existing basin area would City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 be captured by intercepting the storm drain at the intersection of Coffee Road and the new proposed east-west Project street. Area B would be conveyed via the same underground pipes from Coffee Road and the new proposed east-west Project street to Basin 2. Area C would be conveyed by a storm drain system to Basin 2. o Retention Area 3 would provide 15.0 acre-feet of storage capacity in underground structures which retain the drainage until it percolates into the ground while allowing the surface above to be utilized for parking or open space. The storm runoff from Area D (approximately 83 acres zoned CC) and Area E (approximately 23 acres zoned R3), and Area F (approximately 19 acres zoned R1) would be conveyed to Retention Area 3, located at the northeast corner of Brimhall Road and Harvest Creek Road, via a storm drain system. o Retention Area 4 4 would provide 13.2 acre-feet of storage capacity in underground structures similar to Retention Area 3. The storm runoff from the existing retention basin located on the north side of Brimhall Road and the remaining 25 percent of the drainage from the existing retention basin west of Coffee Road and north of Brimhall Road would be conveyed to Retention Area 4 via a storm drain system. Water Quality • Water quality facilities and design features would be integrated into the proposed Project’s design by filtering drainage along landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings. • Pavers and other pervious pavements would be implemented as applicable. Project Impacts Surface Water Hydrology Storm Water Runoff The proposed Project would result in a substantial decrease in pervious surfaces on site from approximately 245 currently pervious acres to approximately 10 pervious acres at Project buildout. While the proposed Project would contain Project Design Features, including additional pervious surfaces, that may increase the total amount of pervious surface at the proposed Project site, a conservative assumption of 10 acres of Project-site pervious surface is used to ensure the fullest and most conservative analysis of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 potential Project impacts. This increase in impervious surface would substantially increase the total amount of surface water runoff generated at the proposed Project site. However, the four proposed retention facilities (including two underground retention facilities) would collect and store all potential Project runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces. As noted above, Project Design Features for the proposed Project include constructing standard detention/retention areas per the specifications set forth in the City of Bakersfield Subdivision Design Manual (Basins 1 and 2) or constructing underground retention and percolation areas consisting of half cylinders surrounded by gravel. Either system allows water to percolate into the ground while allowing use of the surface for parking or open space. The City has approved one pilot project that includes underground detention facilities in various parts of the City. It is City policy not to approve any underground retention facility until such a time that it has been determined that these facilities meet the requirements of the City. Because these facilities would not be constructed for some time, it is anticipated that these facilities would be allowable by the City at the time that they are proposed for construction. However, in the event that the City does not allow underground retention facilities when these facilities would be constructed, the proposed Project would use other standard methods to retain and address drainage to the satisfaction of the City. Additionally, Project Design Features such as landscaped bio-swales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater system. With implementation of the proposed Project, the amount of storm water runoff leaving the site would be fairly minimal and similar in volume to current conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. ı Figure IV.F-1 Proposed Retention Areas Source: PSOMAS, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Flooding and Inundation As noted, the proposed Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; therefore, the Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map nor would it place within a 100-year hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. A small portion of the site at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coffee and Brimhall is within the 500-year flood zone designation. No housing is proposed within this zone. The four proposed retention facilities would collect and store all potential Project runoff on site. The amount of runoff leaving the site with included Project Design Features, would remain similar to existing levels and would not contribute to downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and inundation would be less than significant. The proposed Project site is located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In the event of dam failure, serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately 6 to 8 hours after dam failure. The lag time between failure and flooding on site would reduce potential for injury or death from dam failure; however, property damage could occur. With incorporation of Project Design Features to reduce impacts to certain uses (e.g., the proposed theater) provided in Section IV.E, Geology/Soils, in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, the proposed Project would not 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 dam and Project impacts would be less than significant. Surface Water Quality Runoff during construction and operation of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute sediment and roadway contaminants (e.g., oil) to surface water. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal requirements for controlling pollutant impacts to stormwater and urban runoff from construction and operation activities and would therefore not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Additionally, proposed Project Design Features including implementation of BMPs, preparation of a SWPPP and SUSMP, and compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project Design Features, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and Project impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater Recharge The proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the proposed Project site. Impervious surfaces reduce the amount of surface water that infiltrates into the soil and recharges groundwater. However, the proposed retention facilities would collect surface water runoff and allow it to percolate into groundwater. Additionally, proposed Project Design Features such as landscaped bioswales and retention features within landscape corridors, street parkways, medians, paseos, gardens, active recreation fields and perimeter plantings would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the groundwater system. As applicable, pavers and other pervious pavements would also be implemented which would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the proposed Project site. With implementation of the proposed Project, including proposed Project Design Features, the amount of water infiltrating into the groundwater system would be similar in volume to current conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and Project impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. As discussed in Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, the City has 200,000 AF of groundwater supply annually available as of 2006. The proposed Project would require a net increase of approximately 682 AF/yr at anticipated Project buildout in 2035. As the proposed Project’s demand for water would be less than one percent of the available water supply at buildout, the proposed Project would not significantly change conditions throughout the overall basin or sub-basin groundwater balance. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and Project impacts would be less than significant. Groundwater Quality Construction and operation of the proposed Project could have the potential to impact groundwater quality if polluted surface water were allowed to infiltrate into the groundwater system untreated. Proposed Project Design Features, including treatment and testing of runoff in underground retention structures, would minimize impacts to groundwater quality that could result from polluted surface water runoff and Project impacts would be less than significant. However, Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 are proposed to further reduce this less than significant impact. Remedial actions to address the limited on-site soil and groundwater contamination are anticipated to be completed by 2020; however, conclusion of remediation activities is at the discretion of the RWQCB. It City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 is anticipated that the remedial activities would be completed when there is no further potential for impacts to groundwater quality as a result of past contamination. In addition, the remediation equipment can be relocated or modified, as necessary, with oversight from the RWQCB when development on that portion of the Project site is proposed to occur in order to accommodate future structures. Facilities associated with remediation would be decommissioned and reinstalled as needed in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not interfere with on-site remediation activities and Project impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, groundwater quality could be impacted if existing wells (oil wells and water wells) are not abandoned properly, if unauthorized access of wells is available, or if contaminants are conveyed to groundwater or between aquifers. However, as part of the proposed Project, some wells on site would be abandoned and unauthorized access to the wells will be prohibited. In addition, all known contaminants will be treated and removed through the active remediation program in the limited area of the proposed Project site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railroad, limiting any potential conveyance between aquifers and potential Project impacts would be less than significant. These conditions are not anticipated to occur at the proposed Project site. However, Mitigation Measure F-1 is proposed to further reduce this less than significant impact. Wastewater Wastewater would be conveyed to a City treatment facility (Treatment Plant No. 3) and would not be recycled or discharged on site. This wastewater facility operates in accordance with applicable RWQCB requirements and has the capacity to treat potential Project-generated wastewater wastewater flows. Additionally, as discussed in Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, based on the anticipated wastewater flows calculated for the proposed Project, there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project through buildout in 2035 and the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the existing wastewater conveyance system and wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, water quality impacts regarding wastewater treatment would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development patterns associated with the related projects listed in Table II, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would alter the drainage patterns within portions of the City. The majority of the related projects occur on existing vacant or agricultural land, which currently allow stormwater and irrigation water to percolate into the ground or runoff into drainage sumps and nearby canals. Related projects would include extensive hardscape areas that would result in an increase in runoff and a decrease in percolation into groundwater. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Each related project, as part of its design, must also include stormwater drainage systems to capture and discharge waters from each respective site. The land in the vicinity of the proposed Project area is relatively flat and does not drain to surface waters. Thus, the majority of the related projects in the area would transmit stormwater into retention/detention facilities that would be developed as part of the respective projects. Storm water facilities would then allow percolation of water back into groundwater aquifers, reducing the impact of increased impervious surfaces. Therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity would be less than significant. Additionally, these related projects could increase the amount of urban pollutants that could ultimately affect surface and groundwater quality. Urban uses are associated with a number of stormwater pollutants, such as greases, oils, rubber, debris, silt, pesticides, and fertilizers, etc. Related projects would be compliant with the stringent requirements of the CWA, which are implemented by the City and Kern County through the SUSMP and other statewide NPDES requirements. Water quality standards are achieved through the implementation of BMPs during design, construction, and post-construction operations. The proposed Project and related projects would be subject to these requirements and cumulative impacts to water quality would be less than significant. As discussed in Section IV.O, Utilities and Service Systems, based on the anticipated cumulative wastewater flows calculated for the proposed Project and related projects, there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project and related projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant on the existing wastewater conveyance system and wastewater treatment facilities. The related projects would increase the amount of impervious surfaces throughout Bakersfield, reducing the amount of groundwater recharge. Similar to the proposed Project, each related project would be required to analyze and mitigate impacts associated with a reduction in groundwater recharge in accordance with applicable City requirements. Therefore, cumulative development would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. The majority of related projects are located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, each related project would be required to implement mitigation as applicable to reduce the potential to 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 dam and impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 MITIGATION MEASURES F-1 The two operational oil wells may continue in operation and the monitoring and extraction wells shall continue to be used in association with on-site remediation activities. No existing wells shall be used on-site for water supply purposes. On-site oil wells that will be abandoned on the Project site shall be abandoned in accordance with State and local guidelines and requirements. Damaged on-site oil wells shall be repaired or abandoned in accordance with DOGGR. F-2 Wellheads (including monitoring wells) shall be locked to reduce the potential for unauthorized access. F-3 The Project does not propose to develop any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells. However, in the event that it becomes necessary to drill or construct any new on-site oil wells or remediation monitoring wells, the nature and extent of existing soil and groundwater contamination on site shall be determined by the RWQB. Oil wells or remediation monitoring wells shall not be completed in contaminated soils, nor shall drilling, wells or construction activities provide conduits for contaminants to move between aquifers. Any new well shall meet the City of Bakersfield, State of California DOGGR, and local agency requirements. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Potential Project impacts to groundwater and surface water hydrology and quality would be less than significant with the implementation of the Project Design Features. Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 would further reduce this less than significant impact. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.F. Hydrology and Water Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.F-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTRODUCTION The following section addresses issues regarding the presences of hazardous materials at the proposed Project site as well as within the proximity of the proposed Project site. This section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated March 11, 2008 prepared by Kleinfelder for the proposed Project. The full text of this report is included as Appendix J, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials, which because of their quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential harm to human health or the environment when improperly handled, used, transported, stored or disposed. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site History A majority of the proposed Project site was occupied predominantly by native rangeland until at least 1947. Farm related structures have been noted at the site since at least 1915. An oil refinery facility was located at the site by at least 1946, and possibly as early as 1937. The Sunland Oil Refinery facility expanded from the original location southeast of the intersection of Coffee Road and the BNSF railroad tracks, incorporating areas north of the BNSF railroad tracks and west of Coffee Road. The Sunland Oil Refinery ceased operations by the mid 1990s, with the demolition of most above ground features. Historic aerial photographs and topographic maps are included in Appendix J, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Historic drilling operations typically involved the use of drilling fluids that often contained high concentrations of heavy metals. The drilling fluids were often stored within unlined drilling fluid circulation pits in close proximity to the drilling operations. A review of City of Bakersfield Building Department (CBBD) records for the site revealed numerous permits issued for the former oil refinery facility. A majority of the permits on file for the site pertained to the demolition and removal of above ground storage tanks and other features (including a former sump) associated with the former oil refinery facility. In addition, permits for remediation systems and support features were noted. Older reports documenting remedial action activities conducted at the site (dated 2000 and earlier) were also on file with the CBBD. No UST removal records were noted within the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 CBBD records provided for review. Copies of selected CBBD permits are included in Appendix J, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Existing On-Site Conditions The site is generally bound by the BNSF railway to the north, the Friant-Kern canal to the east, Brimhall Road to the south, and Windsong Street to the west. West of Coffee Road The western portion of the site consists of vacant fields and two small drainage areas owned by the City. Several groundwater monitoring wells and an irrigation pump and well are located in the central portion of the proposed Project site. Valves associated with the onsite remediation system are located west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road An oil well (Sunland Smoot #1) and associated storage tanks are located in the eastern portion of the site south of the railroad tracks (refer to Figure Figure IV.G-1, Site Features). Several extraction wells and a remediation system are located east of Coffee Road and south of the railroad tracks. One oil well and associated storage tanks (Smoot #3) and a water disposal well (Duke #1) are located on the proposed Project site north of the railroad tracks and east of Coffee Road. Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc. (“Pan”) owns and operates a trucking company within an approximately six acre portion of the proposed Project site located to the east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway. Pan’s operations include an approximately 1,400-square-foot office building, truck repair and maintenance facility and parking area for its trucks. Currently it operates 37 trucks that haul petroleum products in 11 western states. Additionally, there are three sub haulers that haul petroleum products for Pan that operate their trucks out of the Pan facility. There is also an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces located in the northeast corner of the proposed Project site leased to ConocoPhillips. Figure IV.G-1 Site Features Source: Kleinfelder, 2007. Road 168 ilk Barn SitePG & E Power Plant facility Vacant Langley Avenue residential vacan t Basin -Farm shop ar ea Pan Pacific Petroleum BNSF Railroad tracks Soil pile basin residential commercial Sunland-Smoot oil well #1 Remediation system Smoot Lease Well #3 Duke Well #1 Lowes Store Friant Kern Canal City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 During a reconnaissance survey of the proposed Project site completed on March 22, 2007 and October 3, 2007, the following hazardous materials were noted: • Diesel fuel (stored within an AST at the Pan facility); • Motor oils and lubricants (stored in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers at the Pan facility); • Waste oil (stored within an AST at the Pan facility); and • Crude oil (stored within an AST associated with crude oil production wells). Records Review The purpose of the records review was to obtain and review records that would help to evaluate recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site and bordering properties. Federal, state and local regulatory agencies publish databases or "lists" of businesses and properties that handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or are the known location of a release of hazardous substances to soil and/or groundwater. These databases are available for review and/or purchase at the regulatory agencies, or the information may be obtained through a commercial database service. A commercial database service, Environmental Data Resources (EDR), was utilized to review the regulatory agency lists for references to the site and any listings within the appropriate ASTM minimum search distance to the site. The EDR database search results are included in Appendix J, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. The proposed Project site appears on the following regulatory agency lists researched by EDR as a result of the former Sunland Refinery activities on-site: • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Generators List (Former Sunland Refinery, 2152 Coffee Road, Large Quantity Generator of aqueous waste, empty containers, and oil-containing wastes); • Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) (Sunland Refining Corporation, 1850 Coffee Road, Civil EFA Enforcement Action taken; Sunland Refining Corporation, 2152 Coffee Road, RCRA Administrative Order for Compliance and/or Penalty); • Facility Index System (FINDS) (Sunland Oil Refinery hazardous waste generator); • California Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Complaints (SLIC) Listing (Sunland Refining Corporation, 2152 Coffee Road, Groundwater Investigation oversight provided by the RWQCB is in progress); City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Underground Storage Tank (UST) Listings (Pan Pacific Petroleum/Sunland Refining/Sunland Refinery, 1850 Coffee Road, one 15,000-gallon fuel UST, no additional information provided); • HazNet (Sunland Refinery/Pan Pacific Petroleum, 1850 Coffee Road; Sunland Refinery, 2152 Coffee Road, hazardous waste generator); • Emissions Inventory Data (Sunland Refinery, 1850 Coffee Road; Former Sunland Refinery, 2152 Coffee Road); and • Envirostor (Sunland Refining Corporation, 2152 Coffee Road, Groundwater contamination). Soil and Groundwater Contamination and Remediation Historic drilling operations typically involved the use of drilling fluids that often contained high concentrations of heavy metals. The drilling fluids were often stored within unlined drilling fluid circulation pits in close proximity to drilling operations. The presence of abandoned and buried drilling mud pits, with associated elevated heavy metal concentrations, may occur near abandoned and active wells on the proposed Project site. West of Coffee Road There is no known contamination on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road and a records search found no records indicating potential contamination west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road According to a review of records on file for the site with the California RWQCB and the Kern County Health Department, soils and groundwater underlying an approximately six acre portion of the proposed Project site located east of Coffee Road has been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons released during the operations of the former Sunland Oil Refinery. Numerous documents have been filed with local and state agencies documenting the review and remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The RWQCB currently provides oversight for the remedial actions taken to address soil and groundwater contamination at the proposed Project site. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapor extraction wells have been installed at the site. Free product and dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon components have been identified within groundwater monitoring wells on site. Remedial efforts currently include the operation of soil vapor extraction systems, air sparging systems, liquid petroleum hydrocarbon extraction, and quarterly groundwater monitoring. The remediation program is limited to a small portion of the proposed Project site east of Coffee Road as shown in Figure IV.G-1, Site Features, and is approximately six acres. The lateral direction of the groundwater flow is reported to be towards the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 northwest, with contaminants noted in groundwater up to 2,600 feet from the former refinery facility. As of January 1, 2008, over seven million pounds of hydrocarbons have been treated by the vapor extraction system at the site. In addition, over 12,000 gallons of liquid petroleum hydrocarbons have been removed and treated. The RWQCB is requiring continued remedial efforts for the site. Completion of remediation is at the discretion of the RWQCB. Emergency Procedures West of Coffee Road There are no emergency procedures in place on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road, except for those associated with the remediation system valves located on this portion of the site. Procedures associated with the remediation system are discussed below. East of Coffee Road As noted, Pan trucking operations, a ConocoPhillips office building, two active oil wells with associated tanks, and a remediation system currently occupy the portion of the proposed Project site located east of Coffee Road. Both Pan and ConocoPhillips have emergency evacuation plans in effect. In addition, Pan has prepared a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan pursuant to 40 CFR Part 112 that establishes the procedures and equipment required to prevent the discharge of oil and hazardous substances. The remediation system operates under a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prepared by The Source Group, Inc. dated January 2, 2008. The HASP was developed to establish the health and safety procedures required to help minimize reasonably foreseeable health and safety concerns to personnel who perform remediation system operation and maintenance activities. The HASP was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard and Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 5192. Potential hazardous chemicals include residual petroleum fluids, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylene, and methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE). The HASP includes a list of exposure limits and symptoms to assist in identifying possible exposure to these chemicals. The HASP includes safety procedures for remediation system operation and maintenance activities. Exposure monitoring is implemented to assess both on-site worker exposure as well as potential for offsite exposure. Monitored constituents include volatile organic compounds. Protective clothing and equipment, including respiratory protection, are also required as applicable. The HASP also identifies decontamination procedures for personnel, sampling equipment, and vehicles and heavy equipment. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The emergency evacuation plan for the remediation system includes employee training, alarm systems, escape routes, escape procedures, critical operations or equipment, rescue and medical duty assignments, designation of responsible parties, emergency reporting procedures, and methods to account for all employees after evacuation. Hazardous Materials and Waste West of Coffee Road There are no known hazardous materials used or stored on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road Hazardous materials are used and stored on site in association with Pan. Additionally, as noted, the former refinery is listed on the RCRA Hazardous Waste Generators List as a large-quantity generator of unspecified oil containing wastes and is subject to the life cycle hazardous waste management requirements of RCRA and compliance with these requirements, including inspections of storage locations, and maintenance of the required manifests, inspection logs, and records. The types of hazardous waste generated include, but are not limited to aqueous waste, empty containers, and oilcontaining wastes. Typical operational hazardous wastes generated on-site are managed by licensed waste treatment, disposal, or recycling facilities that are permitted to receive the applicable waste. As most of the hazardous wastes generated on-site are transported to resource recovery facilities where the energy content of the waste is recovered for beneficial use, landfill storage capacities are not a limiting factor. The hazardous wastes listed on the HazNet database that were previously generated at the site have been removed for disposal at a Kern County hazardous waste disposal site. The Applicant is currently in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) West of Coffee Road There are no known ASTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road and a records search found no evidence of ASTs west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road As noted, permits on file with CBBD for the site pertained to the demolition and removal of above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and other features (including a former sump) associated with the former oil refinery facility. The ASTs consisted of large and moderate capacity crude oil and refined petroleum hydrocarbon storage tanks. The permits do not indicate the bottom construction of the ASTs or whether the foundations of the ASTs were removed. Additionally, as noted, three ASTs, one containing diesel fuel, one containing waste oil and one containing crude oil, were observed on the proposed Project site during the site reconnaissance survey. Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) West of Coffee Road There are no known USTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road and a records search found no evidence of USTs west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road The proposed Project site is listed as having four former USTs. These USTs contained waste oil products and included two 3,000-gallon, one 8,000-gallon, and one 1,000-gallon waste oil USTs. Additionally, in May 2001, two approximately 1,000-gallon USTs were removed from within the former North Tank Farm of the Sunland Refinery. These USTs were removed with oversight from Bakersfield Fire Department, Environmental Services Division. The only known UST onsite is a 15,000-gallon UST for the storage and dispensing of diesel fuel utilized by Pan, operating under their existing SPCC. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are materials that contain asbestos, a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral that was mined for its useful thermal properties and tensile strength. ACM is generally defined as either friable or non-friable. Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than one percent asbestos. Friable ACM is more likely to produce airborne fibers than non-friable ACM, and can be crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable ACM is defined as any material containing one percent or less of asbestos. Non-friable ACM cannot be crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. When left intact and undisturbed, ACM do not pose a health risk to building occupants. Potential for human exposure only occurs when ACM becomes damaged to the extent that asbestos fibers become airborne and are inhaled. These airborne fibers are carcinogenic and can cause lung disease. The principal federal governmental agencies regulating asbestos are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The age of a building is directly related to its potential for containing elevated levels of ACMs. Generally, all untested materials are presumed to contain asbestos in buildings constructed prior to 1981. The U.S. EPA recommends a proactive in-place management program be implemented wherever undamaged ACMs are found in a building. The U.S. EPA further recommends that damaged ACMs be removed, repaired, encapsulated, or enclosed, and that all ACMs are removed prior to any demolition or major renovation activities. West of Coffee Road There are no structures on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road As noted, existing structures on the proposed Project site located east of Coffee Road were built prior to 1981. Due to the age of these structures, they have the potential to contain ACMs. Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Lead-based paint (LBP), which can result in lead poisoning when consumed or inhaled, was widely used in the past to coat and decorate buildings. Lead poisoning can cause anemia and damage to the brain and nervous system, particularly in children. Like ACMs, LBP generally does not pose a health risk to building occupants when left undisturbed; however, deterioration, damage, or disturbance could result in a hazardous exposure. In 1978, the use of LBP was federally banned by the Consumer Product Safety City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Commission. Therefore, only buildings built before 1978 have the potential to contain LBP, as well as buildings built shortly thereafter, as the phase-out of LBP was gradual. West of Coffee Road There are no structures on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road As noted, existing structures on the proposed Project site located east of Coffee Road were built prior to 1978. Due to the age of these structures, they have the potential to contain LBP. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs were used until 1979 as insulating fluids in electrical equipment, transformers, lighting ballasts and heavy switching gear. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) banned the manufacture of PCBs and controls the use and disposal of existing PCB-containing equipment. Exposure to large amounts of PCBs can cause skin irritation, liver damage, and endocrine disruption, and PCBs are a potential carcinogen. Because existing on-site structures were built prior to 1979, transformers and switches containing PCBs may be encountered on-site. West of Coffee Road There are no structures on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. East of Coffee Road All lighting ballasts which are not clearly labeled as non-PCB are assumed to be PCB-containing and would be handled, stored and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Existing and Abandoned Wells As noted, two oil wells and a water disposal well are located on the proposed Project site as well as groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapor extraction wells installed at the site for remediation purposes. In addition, the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) records indicate that there are approximately eight plugged and abandoned oil wells and dry holes located on the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 proposed Project site. Current DOGGR regulations require specific measures when abandoning production wells or dry holes drilled for petroleum extraction. Because historic requirements were not as stringent as current requirements, the DOGGR standards require the re-abandonment of previously plugged or abandoned wells in the event that a structure proposed in proximity to a historically abandoned oil well or dry hole could result in a hazard. Existing Area Conditions (Off-site) Adjacent land uses include residential uses to the west and south, and commercial uses to the east and southeast. Industrial land uses are also present in the proposed Project vicinity. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located north of the proposed Project site and the BNSF Railway, and the Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J) is is located further to the east beyond the Friant Kern Canal. The facilities associated with the PG&E site are not located immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site. Additionally, to the north of the proposed Project site is the Rosedale Highway commercial corridor that includes a variety of commercial uses, such as the Northwest Promenade and a Lowes Home Improvement Center. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) maintains a database of potentially hazardous waste facilities identified as the Cal-Sites list. These sites are identified through the historical Abandoned Site Survey Program and federal, state, and county funded site evaluation programs. The Cal-Sites list also includes both the Annual Workplan (AWP) and Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP) sites. The address of 6451 Rosedale appears without an identifying name on the BEP. This address corresponds to the former Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. facility, currently known as the Big West refinery, located approximately 500 feet east of the easternmost border of the proposed Project site. According to information provided by EDR, a treatment system has been installed to address contaminated groundwater originating from the Big West refinery, with the extent of contaminated groundwater defined and “under control”. Groundwater monitoring is in progress to confirm that contaminated groundwater does not migrate further. Current human exposures to contamination originating at this facility are also reported to be “under control.” According to groundwater monitoring reports submitted to the RWQCB, the results of groundwater sampling of monitoring wells located between the proposed Project site and the Big West refinery did not indicate at the time of sampling that groundwater contamination originating from the Big West refinery facility has migrated to the proposed Project site. The Big West refinery is classified as a hazardous materials facility, and is regulated under the California Accidental Release Program (Cal-ARP) due to the handling of extremely hazardous substances. According to correspondence from the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, a catastrophic release at the Big West refinery as a result of existing operating conditions or as a result of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the proposed refinery expansion would present significant health effects to the general public including the proposed Project site. According to the records review completed through EDR, the PG&E site located at 2401 Coffee Road is a facility that generates hazardous wastes and is also on the SLIC and UST listings. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is providing lead regulatory agency oversight for the assessment and remedial activity addressing the groundwater contamination at this facility. Due to the prevailing direction of groundwater flows in the area, assessment activities at the PG&E site are being evaluated with consideration to groundwater contamination originating from the proposed Project site in association with previous site uses. Because the PG&E site is located hydraulically down-gradient relative to the proposed Project site, it is not considered likely that operations at the PG&E site have impacted groundwater underlying the proposed Project site. The Rancho Laborde Estate, located approximately 3,500 feet west of the proposed Project site near the intersection of Calloway and Hageman Roads, is the only Cortese listed property within a half-mile of the proposed Project. The Cortese list is the Identified Hazardous Waste and Substances Site database maintained by the Office of Environmental Protection, Office of Hazardous Materials. This database identifies contaminated public drinking water supply wells, sites selected for remediation, sites with known toxic releases, UST sites with reported releases, and solid waste disposal facilities where contamination migration is known. This listed property is not anticipated to pose an adverse impact to the site due to its location hydraulically down-gradient relative to the proposed Project site. Orphan Summary/Unmapped Sites Report Due to poor or inadequate address information, several properties listed on published regulatory agency lists could not be mapped. These properties were included in an orphan summary/unmapped properties report. Because they have incomplete addresses, these properties are not reviewable as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard. However, based upon the available address information, none of the orphan properties appear to be within the appropriate ASTM minimum search distance to the proposed Project site and therefore it is not anticipated that these properties would impact the proposed Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Setting Federal Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) This federal legislation requires special training of handlers of hazardous materials, notification to employees who work in the vicinity of hazardous materials, acquisition from the manufacturer of material safety data sheets (MSDS) which describe the proper use of hazardous materials, and training of employees to remediate any hazardous material accidental releases. The OSHA regulations contain worker safety provisions with respect to hazardous waste management operations and emergency responses involving hazardous wastes. The hazardous waste provisions of OSHA are contained in the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER). This legislation regulates asbestos as it relates to employee safety through a set of notification and corrective action requirements, warning signs and labels, controlled access, use of protective equipment, demolition/renovation procedures, housekeeping controls, training, and in certain cases, air monitoring and medical surveillance to reduce potential exposure. This legislation also requires contractors involved in asbestos surveys and removal to be certified by Cal OSHA. Lead exposure during construction activities is regulated by the OSHA Lead Standard under 29 CFR 1926.62. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 This federal legislation phased out the use of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in new building materials, and sets requirements for the use, handling, and disposal of ACM. Additionally, this legislation bans the manufacture of PCBs and controls the use and disposal of existing PCB-containing equipment. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) This federal legislation regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste by "large-quantity generators" (1,000 kilograms/month or more) through a comprehensive life cycle or "cradle to grave" tracking requirements. These include maintaining inspection logs of hazardous waste storage locations, records of quantities being generated and stored, and manifests of pick-ups and deliveries to licensed treatment/storage/disposal facilities. RCRA also identifies standards for treatment, storage, and disposal. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Subtitle I of this legislation authorizes the U.S. EPA to issue regulations for new UST installations as well as strict standards for upgrading existing USTs, corrosion protection, spill and overflow protection, onsite practices and record-keeping, UST closure standards, and financial responsibility. State State of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) The DOGGR supervises the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and abandonment of oil, gas and geothermal wells in California. The regulatory program set forth by the DOGGR for the management of these resources emphasizes the appropriate development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in the state through sound engineering practices that protect the environment, prevent pollution, and ensure public safety. To accomplish these goals, the DOGGR recommends that buildings over or in the proximity of plugged and abandoned oil wells should be avoided, or, if not feasible, it may be necessary to plug or re-plug wells to current DOGGR specifications. The State Oil and Gas Supervisor is authorized to order the re-abandonment of previously plugged and abandoned wells when construction over or in the proximity of wells could result in a hazard. Department of Toxic Substances Control The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for restoration, protection and enhancement of the environment; ensuring public health, environmental quality and economic vitality through regulating hazardous waste; conducting and overseeing cleanups; and developing and promoting pollution prevention. DTSC meets these goals through implementing programs that oversee cleanups, prevent releases by ensuring waste is properly generated, handled, transported, stored, and disposed of; enforcing laws against those who inappropriately manage hazardous wastes; promoting pollution reduction; encouraging recycling and reuse; conducting toxicological evaluations; and involving the public in DTSC decision making. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste discharge permit requirements apply for onsite treatment of California-designated Non-Hazardous Waste such as that disposed of in septic tanks. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Waste Discharge requirements for discharges to land by a small domestic wastewater treatment system, there are several requirements for septic systems. The proposed Project would likely connect to a municipal wastewater treatment system, and would not use septic systems. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 California Government Code Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, State Department of Health Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste property throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Prior to approval of a development project by a lead agency, the applicant shall consult these lists to determine if the project site is located on any of the lists compiled by these agencies. California Public Resources Code CEQA statute (California Resource Code, Division 13 Environmental Protection) 21092.6 requires the lead agency to consult with the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code to determine whether a project and any alternatives are located on a site that is included in any list. State Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal OSHA) This state legislation requires special training of handlers of hazardous materials, notification to employees who work in the vicinity of hazardous materials, acquisition from the manufacturer of material safety data sheets (MSDS) which describe the proper use of hazardous materials, and training of employees to remediate any hazardous material accidental releases. Cal OSHA also requires preparation of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) which is an employee safety program of inspections, procedures to correct unsafe conditions, employee training, and occupational safety communication. Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) This state legislation requires certain businesses which use hazardous materials to post public notice of any accidental hazardous materials releases, the release of or other known potential exposures to materials known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and prohibits such businesses from releases into the environment at levels above identified risk levels. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 California Health and Safety Code Section 25221 et seq. (Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Statute) This State legislation requires that a builder who intends to construct residential or buildings of other specified uses, who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a “significant disposal of hazardous waste” has occurred at or within 2,000 feet of the property, must seek a determination from the DTSC as to whether the property is a hazardous waste disposal or border zone property. California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) This state legislation regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste by large-quantity generators through a comprehensive life cycle or "cradle to grave" tracking requirements. These include maintaining inspection logs of hazardous waste storage locations, records of quantities being generated and stored, and manifests of pick-ups and deliveries to licensed treatment/storage/disposal facilities. This legislation also lists asbestos and PCBs as hazardous waste. Connelly Warnings Act of 1988 This state legislation requires the preparation of an Asbestos Management Plan by owners of pre-1979 buildings known to contain ACM and establishes notification procedures for tenants and employees working in said buildings. California Code of Regulations and California Health and Safety Code This state legislation (State UST program) incorporates the requirements of RCRA Subtitle I and sets registration and permitting requirements, construction/operational standards, closure requirements, licensing of UST contractors, financial responsibility requirements, release reporting/corrective action requirements, and enforcement. The state program also requires the installation of leak detection systems and/or monitoring of UST installations. Local Kern County Emergency Health and Safety Division The Kern County Emergency Health and Safety Division (KCEHSD) provides oversight for locations within county jurisdiction that pose a threat to human health and safety. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Kern County Department of Planning and Development Services The Kern County Department of Planning and Development Services prepared the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the safe and responsible management of hazardous wastes within Kern County. City of Bakersfield Fire Department The City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division (ESD) maintains jurisdiction for hazards and hazardous materials and hazardous material spills within the City. The ESD is responsible for existing hazards as well as the oversight of cleanup and remediation. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan cites policies to provide decision-makers with long-range guidance affecting the future character of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. The elements within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provide goals, policies and implementation measures in order to reduce impacts related to public safety. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology A site reconnaissance was conducted, and records and readily available technical publications and maps were reviewed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM; Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1527-05). The records review included review of several databases available from the Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies regarding hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal at the site; and for off-site facilities up to a mile radius from the site. Additionally, interviews and telephone conversations were conducted with local regulatory personnel knowledgeable about the site. The history of the Project site and adjoining properties was based on various sources which may include a review of aerial photographs, city city or suburban directories, interviews, historical maps, chain-of-title, and information provided to by the applicant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a significant environmental impact if it would: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would 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 or a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. As discussed in the Initial Study (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR), the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Thresholds (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h), listed above. As such, only further analysis relative to Thresholds (a), (b), and (d) are provided below. Project Design Features The following Project Design feature with respect to hazards and hazardous materials has been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • All facilities associated with remediation, including groundwater and extraction wells, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQB following completion of remediation activities. Project Impacts Construction Impacts Soil and Groundwater Contamination West of Coffee Road There is no known contamination on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Potential Project impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. East of Coffee Road As a result of past refinery activities, soils onsite have the potential to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. There is the potential to encounter these contaminated soils during construction excavation and grading activities. Exposure to these types of hazardous substance could result in a significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2, G-4, and G-5, potential Project impacts during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Emergency Procedures As discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this EIR, construction of the proposed Project could temporarily interfere with local and on-site emergency response. Local streets adjacent to the proposed Project site would be used for construction traffic; however, construction traffic would conform to all traffic work plan and access standards to allow adequate emergency access. Implementation of traffic work plans and access standards would reduce the potential for the impacts on emergency response during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or on-site emergency response or evacuation plans or a local, state, or federal agency’s emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, potential potential Project impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hazardous Materials and Waste Construction activities for the proposed Project would increase the use of typical construction materials, including paints, cleaning materials, and vehicle fuels, which may be hazardous if not properly transported, used, or disposed of. The use of these materials would be short term and would occur in accordance with standard construction practices and manufacturer guidelines. Construction activities would, therefore, not create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and Project impacts would be less than significant. Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) West of Coffee Road There are no known ASTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Potential Project impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. East of Coffee Road The conditions of soils beneath existing ASTs on the proposed Project site as well as any underground supply piping associated with the ASTs may be impacted by leaking petroleum products. Exposure to impacted soils could result in significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measures G-4 and G-5 are proposed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) West of Coffee Road There are no known USTs on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road and it is not anticipated that unknown USTs would be encountered during Project-related grading. Potential Project impacts with respect to USTs are anticipated to be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 East of Coffee Road Project-related grading could uncover or disturb existing known and unknown USTs, which could lead to soil and/or groundwater impacts and the potential exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1, G-2 and G-4, potential hazardous materials impacts during construction associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be minimized. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures potential Project impacts with respect to USTs would be reduced to a less than significant level. Asbestos, LBP, and PCBs West of Coffee Road There are no structures on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. As such, Project impacts related to asbestos, asbestos, ACM, LBP and PCBs are anticipated to be less than significant. East of Coffee Road Due to the age of the existing structures on the proposed Project site, the potential for encountering ACMs, LBP, or PCBs during Project demolition activities exists. As handling and disposal of asbestos, ACM, LBP, and PCBs would be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, construction of the proposed Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release or explosion of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, potential Project impacts associated with asbestos, ACM, LBP, or PCBs would be less than significant. Existing and Abandoned Wells Construction of the proposed Project may require the abandonment of existing water wells, oil production wells, groundwater treatment wells, and groundwater monitoring wells. Wells on site would be abandoned in accordance with appropriate regulatory requirements depending on the nature of the well. Through compliance with applicable regulations, construction impacts associated with existing wells on site would be less than significant. Additionally, as noted, abandoned dry holes and oil wells are located on site. A dry hole or well that was not abandoned in accordance with existing DOGGR requirements in close proximity to a structure or structural foundation has the potential to significantly impact the physical integrity of the structure. With City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the implementation of Mitigation Measure G-3 this potential Project impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operational Impacts Remediation West of Coffee Road There is no remediation equipment on the portion of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road with the exception of some valves. These would be considered a part of the remediation system and would be managed in accordance with the rest of the system as discussed below. Thus, impacts related to remediation are anticipated to be less than significant. East of Coffee Road As discussed above, remedial activities are limited to a relatively small portion of the proposed Project Site (approximately six acres) east of Coffee Road. Within this limited area, the remedial equipment can be relocated to accommodate proposed Project structures. The current remedial system has been operational at this location for the past ten years and it has been effective in removing a vast majority of the hydrocarbons at the proposed Project Site. The existing remedial system is a closed system, which ensures that the underground hydrocarbons do not present a health and safety threat to persons or activities on or around the property, have no significant impacts on surface or surrounding uses and do not preclude any future development. The level of hydrocarbon removal from the property has been tapering off in the last six years due to the fact that most of the hydrocarbons have been removed from this site. It is expected that the level of hydrocarbons removed at this site will continue to decrease to a nominal level. In addition, natural attenuation of the hydrocarbon plume in groundwater is occurring beneath and downgradient of the site and it is anticipated that following completion of active remediation at the site, only periodic groundwater monitoring will be required. All remedial actions to address on-site soil and groundwater contamination are anticipated to be complete by 2020, however, conclusion of remediation is at the discretion of the RWQCB. Following completion of remediation activities, facilities associated with remediation, would be decommissioned in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. With respect to the proposed Project, the existing remediation system can be relocated or modified, if necessary, with oversight from the RWQCB when development on that portion of the proposed Project site is scheduled to occur in order to accommodate future structures. Therefore, operation of the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project would not interfere with on-site remediation activities and potential Project impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of groundwater quality impacts. Hazardous Materials and Waste The proposed Project has the potential to increase the acquisition, use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials on-site. Potentially hazardous materials that would likely be stored and used on the proposed Site in association with proposed Project operation include typical commercial and household cleaning solvents, paints and lacquers, petroleum products, commercial and household pesticides, which, when stored and used in small quantities, would not pose a risk of upset or significant environmental impact. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Through continued compliance with applicable laws, potential Project impacts associated with the routine use, storage, disposal and management of hazardous materials would be less than significant. With implementation of the proposed Project, the Pan and ConocoPhillips facilities would be decommissioned and hazardous waste generating activities on property would decrease. Additionally, the proposed Project would introduce residential and commercial uses to the site that are not anticipated to generate substantial hazardous waste. Therefore, the proposed Project would decrease the demand for hazardous waste landfill capacity and potential Project impacts related to the generation of hazardous waster would be less than significant impact. Asbestos, LBP, and PCBs New on-site construction due to the proposed Project would include use of commercially sold construction materials that are not anticipated to to increase the occurrence of ACMs, LBP, or PCBs at the proposed Project site. Therefore, operation of the new development proposed at the Project site is not anticipated to expose persons to these materials. West of Coffee Road There are no existing structures on the portion of the Project site west of Coffee Road. Potential Project impacts with respect associated with ACMs, LBP, and PCBs from operation of the proposed Project are anticipated to be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 East of Coffee Road Per applicable regulations, new workers associated with the proposed Project would be protected by worker safety requirements. With existing laws and regulations, operation of the proposed Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, potential Project impacts associated with ACMs, LBP, and PCBs from operation of the proposed Project are anticipated to be less than significant. Electric and Magnetic Fields Research conducted over the last two decades has raised much debate over the health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields, typically referred to as electromagnetic fields (EMF), but has produced no conclusive evidence of risk to human health. Electric fields are produced in electrical lines as a result of voltage applied to wiring, and is measured in volts per meter (V/m) or kilovolts per meter (kV/m). Electric field strength falls off dramatically with distance, and many objects, including trees and houses shield these fields. Most exposure to residential electric fields is a result of internal household appliance use. Magnetic fields are a result of the movement (current) of electricity. These fields are measured in Gauss. However, this measure is extremely large and fields from electrical lines are generally referred to in milligauss (mG). As with electric fields, magnetic field strength decreases dramatically with distance from the source. Exposure to electromagnetic fields is an existing circumstance that is typical in urban communities and the intensity of EMF varies with the type of electricity source. Whether the fields are originating from household appliances or high voltage transmission lines, public and scientific concern exists regarding the health effects resulting from exposure. The relationship between EMF exposure and health effects has not been scientifically proven, results from the plethora of epidemiological and laboratory studies that have taken place are inconclusive. California and local agencies and utilities have found no threshold value, no dose-response, nor any causative relationship that demonstrates evidence of any physical effects from EMF. Electric fields are produced by the existing power transmission lines in the 330-foot wide right-of-way on the Project site, however, as there is no development proposed within the right-of-way the electric magnetic fields at the perimeter of the right-of-way are anticipated to be nominal. There are existing underground distribution systems in and adjacent to the proposed Project site within the streets and BNSF Railway right-of-way. All future electrical lines would be located underground and would be installed in a manner consistent with current practices. There are no substations currently on-site. If a substation is developed on-site, the equipment would be metal encased and grounded, to ensure no external electric fields emanating from the substation. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As a result of the inconclusive findings from research in the area of EMF, a determination of significance to the health effects resulting from exposure to EMF cannot reasonably be made. There are no applicable municipal or regional policies currently in place which attempt to limit EMF exposure. However, the onsite handling of facilities which could potentially emit EMF levels, including the undergrounding of all electric lines within the site, as well as the enclosing of electrical lines associated with the proposed Project, would be in accordance with EMF consensus recommendations, which authorize utility companies to implement no-or low-cost steps to reduce field exposure. Undergrounding or enclosing electrical systems is considered, at this time, to be one of the most feasible actions to reduce EMF exposure levels. In accordance with this this information, potential Project impacts relative to the EMF issue are concluded to be less than significant. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Applicable public health and safety goals relative to the proposed Project site are listed below in Table IV.G-1, Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies, followed by a brief explanation of how the proposed Project complies with the goals and policies. Table IV.G-1 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies Safety Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Seismic Safety Policy 2: Require that the siting and development of critical facilities under discretionary approval by the City Council and Board of Supervisors be supported by documentation of thorough hazard investigations relating to site selection, preconstruction site investigations, and the application of the most current professional standards for seismic design. Consistent. The proposed Project site has been investigated for potential hazards as noted. Project design features and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential Project impacts to a less than significant level. The Project would not include any critical facilities and would not impact any such facilities. Public Safety Goal 4: Assure that fire, hazardous substance regulation, and emergency medical service problems are continuously identified and addressed in a proactive way, in order to optimize safety and efficiency. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to fire, hazardous substances, and emergency medical services. Policy 4: Monitor, enforce, and update as appropriate all emergency plans as needs and conditions in the planning area change, including the California Earthquake Response Plan, the Kern County Evacuation Plan, and the City of Bakersfield Disaster Plan. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable emergency response plans. Policy 7: Enforce ordinances regulating the use/manufacture/transport/disposal of hazardous substances, and require compliance with state and federal laws regulating such substances. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous substances. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.G-1 Project Consistency with Relevant Safety Element Goals and Policies Safety Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Policy 8: The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report serves as the policy document guiding all facets of hazardous waste. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous waste. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR has the potential to increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials. Each of the related projects would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with transport/use/disp osal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools), listed hazardous material sites, aircraftrelated hazards, emergency response, and wildland fire hazards. Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, this evaluation would occur on a case-by-case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Existing operations at the Big West refinery have the potential to result in minor and major hazards. The proposed Big West (Clean Fuels) project (related project number 21) would increase the number of minor and major hazards at the Big West refinery. Major hazards have the potential to lead to substantial property damage or major injury to members of the public. The Big West (Clean Fuels) project proposes to construct and operate additional processing units within the existing refinery in order to increase production of gasoline and diesel fuel. The Big West (Clean Fuels) project is requesting a variance to allow structures to exceed the 150-foot height restriction of the M-3 Zone District. Additionally, the project will require a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gas in excess of 2,000 gallons. The CUP, in addition to a USEPA permit, would also allow up to nine new injection wells and four existing injection wells. The potential for major hazards as a result of existing operations would be considered a significant cumulative impact that is unavoidable. Expansion of the refinery would increase this impact. A Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2005121041) was prepared for the Big West (Clean Fuels) project and released on February 16, 2007, but was later withdrawn from circulation. A revised Draft EIR was distributed in June 2008. The project was approved by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on October 21, 2008. The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Thus, while the Big West project could increase the potential for major hazards, the incremental effects of the proposed Project are not significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects, including Big West’s expansion. Because the proposed Project’s contribution to the potential release of hazardous materials is not cumulatively considerable, the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES G-1. If buried drilling mud pits or USTs are found on-site, additional assessment including, but not limited to, identification of the drilling mud pits or USTs, collection and analysis of soil samples for evaluation of the materials within the former drilling mud pits or USTs, shall be conducted. Any additional assessment shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. G-2. If soil contamination is discovered (i.e., by sight, smell, visual, etc.) during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented so as to render the area suitable for grading activities to resume. The contaminated soil discovered shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ (in-place), or otherwise managed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and the Soil Management Plan proposed in Mitigation Measure G-4. G-3. If structures and structural foundations are proposed in close proximity to historically abandoned wells, a geotechnical assessment shall be completed to address subsurface structural requirements. Recommendations including setback distances from abandoned wells and potential well abandonment or re-abandonment pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code 15.66.080 B and other applicable regulations, identified in this assessment shall be implemented. G-4. A Soil Management Plan for the management and possible reuse or disposal of contaminated soils on the Project site shall be prepared prior to any development activities in portions of the site with impacted soils. Components of the soil management plan shall include, but not be limited to: • A summary of existing soil analytical data for the site, evaluation and incorporation of data from prior Health and Safety Plans (HASP), including exposure monitoring data associated with assessment or remedial activity conducted at the site; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Worker notification and training addressing the potential for worker contact with soils containing hazardous levels of hazardous substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons; • Provisions for soil and air screening during the disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The soil and air screening shall be conducted by a consultant independent of the earthmoving and general contractor conducting earthmoving activities during development of the site. Soil and air screening provisions shall include visual identification of suspect contaminated soils, soil and air screening of soils by portable direct field reading instrumentation (such as a photoionization detector, or PID). Personal air monitoring shall be conducted for petroleum hydrocarbon components with established PELs, such as benzene. • Provisions for identification and evaluation of suspect contaminated soils, not previously identified at the site; and • Provisions for the management of known or suspected impacted soils, including mitigation measures, on-site reuse, or off-site disposal, following soil characterization and notification of appropriate local and state regulatory agencies. G-5. Areas associated with ASTs including any underground supply piping shall be evaluated prior to the commencement of construction activities in these areas. The evaluation shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. In the event that hazardous materials are identified or encountered, the materials shall be handled and/or removed consistent with applicable regulations. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above and compliance with applicable regulations, potential Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.G-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS H. MINERAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section describes the existing petroleum and sand/gravel mineral resources that exist in the region and on the Project site and the potential impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Project. The following analysis is based upon the Oil and Mineral Resources Impact Study (August 10, 2007) provided as Appendix K, Oil and Mineral Resources Impact Study, to this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The principal mineral resources present in the proposed Project area are oil, natural gas, sand, and gravel. Kern County is the fifth largest oil producing county in the country and the region is a major oilproducing area with substantial oil and gas fields existing within the metropolitan Bakersfield area. As such, oil and gas production provides many jobs and, thus, is an important component of the local economy. Sand and gravel are also important resources, providing material for new construction and the maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. Petroleum Resources As noted in Section IV.E, Geology/Soils, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project site is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Basin Province within the southern portion of the Great San Joaquin Valley geomorphic province of California. The San Joaquin Basin Province is divided into nine petroleum plays. A petroleum play is defined as a group of prospects forming a common geological population linked by one or more factors such as stratigraphy, structure, reservoir type, or source rock type. The proposed Project site is located in the Lower Bakersfield Arch play (refer to Figure IV.H-1, Lower Bakersfield Arch). The Lower Bakersfield Arch play consists of oil and associated gas accumulations at depths from about 5,600 to 11,800 feet below ground surface and range in thickness from several inches to 400 feet. A portion of the proposed Project site lies in the southwest portion of the Fruitvale area, a Department of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) designated oil field, which comprises approximately 3,970 productive acres. The Fruitvale area includes three areas (refer to Figure IV.H-2, Fruitvale Oil Field): Main Area, Calloway Area (abandoned), and Greenacres Area (abandoned). The proposed Project site is located in the approximately 3,685-acre Main Area. The approximately 265-acre Calloway Area lies to the north of the site and the approximately 20-acre Greenacres Area lies to the northwest of the site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As reported in the 2005 Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, the Fruitvale area has produced cumulatively 123,625 million barrels of oil (Mbbl) and 41,036 million 1,000-cubic feet (MMcf) of natural gas. The Main Area wells have contributed approximately 98 percent to the cumulative total of oil production and approximately 97 percent to the cumulative total of natural gas production. Oil reserve estimates for the Main Area is reported as 11,071 Mbbl and the gas reserve estimate was reported as not available. The potential for discovery of modest sized accumulations is considered likely in the Bakersfield area because of the underlying geologic conditions found in the Lower Bakersfield Arch. Based on site reconnaissance and data provided on the State of California Division of Oil and Gas database, there are two actively producing oil wells and one active water disposal well on-site. The wells are associated with Sunray Petroleum Inc., and include oil wells Sunland-Smoot #1 and Smoot #3 and water disposal well Duke #1 (refer to Figure IV.G-1, Site Features, in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR). Sand and Gravel Resources Sand and gravel areas are concentrated primarily along the floodplain and alluvial fan of the Kern River, where major floods have left clean, coarse deposits, over the past several thousand years. The proposed Project site lies in mineral resources zone three (MRZ-3) as designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Mineral resource zone three is classified as an area containing mineral deposits for which the importance and extent of which cannot be determined from available data. However, the proposed Project site is outside of the area where high-grade sand and gravel are typically concentrated, and no existing productive open pit mining is within the area of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site likely contains only subgrade sand and gravel material that could be used as fill and would be characterized as having a low potential for high-grade sand and gravel. Figure IV.H-1 Lower Bakersfield Arch Source: Kleinfelder, 3/10/2007. Legend Site Lower Bakersfield Arch boundary City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Figure IV.H-2 Fruitvale Oil Field Source: Kleinfelder, 3/8/2007. Legend Site Site boundary City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Framework State The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was adopted to address the loss of regionally significant mineral deposits to land uses that preclude mining. SMARA mandates a two-phased mineral resource conservation process called classification-designation. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) is responsible, under SMARA, for carrying out the classification phase of the process. The State Mining and Geology Board is responsible for the second phase: designating areas in a production-consumption region that contain notable deposits of Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate (valued for its importance in construction and versatility) that may be needed to meet the region’s future demands. City The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) includes goals and policies related to the conservation of mineral resources. resources. Such information is found in the Conservation Element of the MBGP. Further guidance with similar goals and polices can be found in Chapter 5 (Conservation Element) of the MBGP. Goals that affect the proposed Project include: • protecting areas of significant resource potential for future use; and • avoiding conflicts between the productive use of mineral and energy resource lands and urban growth. Policies that affect the proposed Project include: • making land-use decisions that recognize the importance of identified mineral resources and the need for conservation of resources identified by the State Mining and Geology Board; • protecting significant mineral and petroleum resource areas, including potential sand and gravel extraction; promoting development of compatible uses adjacent to mineral extraction areas; • implementing CEQA, as appropriate, to minimize land use conflicts and reduce environmental impacts of all proposed resource extraction operations; and • prohibiting incompatible development in areas that have a significant potential for harm to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 public health, safety, and welfare due to mineral and petroleum extraction and processing. As noted, the proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the Fruitvale area. The MGBP does not identify any protected sand and gravel mineral sites within the boundaries of the proposed Project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology A site reconnaissance was conducted, and local agency records and readily available technical publications and maps were reviewed. The potential impacts associated with the proposed Project are evaluated based on a qualitative assessment of its anticipated effects. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (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; or (b) result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to mineral resources. Project Impacts Petroleum Resources Viable oil reserves exist in the location of the Project, and two wells on site are actively producing oil. These resources are beneficial to the region. Although these wells would not be demolished as part of the Project and they would continue to operate per City standards, the Project could result in the loss of availability of a known valuable resource. On the basis that there is a possibility for a loss of availability City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 of a known valuable resource, it is conservatively considered a significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the MGBP and potential Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, as discussed in Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, potential environmental concerns associated with the development of the site in proximity to active or historic oilproducing fields may include, but are not limited to, petroleum contaminated soil, methane gas, oil seepage, leaking wells and discovery of wells thought to be abandoned or plugged. Potential impacts associated with these materials are considered to be potentially significant and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Refer Refer to Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, for additional information. Sand and Gravel Resources The proposed Project would preclude the extraction of sand and gravel resources as these activities would not be allowed under the proposed land use and zoning designations. However, it is unlikely that viable economic extraction of these materials would occur in the area of the site given the low potential for highgrade sand and gravel resources. Therefore, potential Project impacts related to sand and gravel resources would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts to mineral resources could occur if the cumulative projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would result in the loss of oil or aggregate mineral resources. Some of the related projects off-site may also occur within or near existing oil fields and sand and gravel mining operations. However, where these resources have substantial remnant supplies of regional importance, none of the related projects are anticipated to preclude continued extraction or production of these resources. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site, because the site is not delineated as such on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan and impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.H. Mineral Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.H-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 MITIGATION MEASURES H-1. To provide continued access to underlying oil reserves, drilling sites shall be reserved in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.66.080 C. for the two active petroleum extraction wells. New construction and improvements in the vicinity of existing wells shall conform to City setback development standards and shall be developed in accordance with applicable regulations of the City of Bakersfield and Department of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 would reduce potential Project impacts related to mineral resources to a less than significant level. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Introduction This section of the Draft EIR provides a description of the biological resources on the proposed Project site, including habitats, plants, wildlife, and special-status species, a discussion of the regulations that serve to protect sensitive resources, an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and recommendations to minimize and mitigate potentially significant impacts on sensitive resources. This section is based on a Biological Site Assessment prepared by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates on November 16, 2007 and updated on May 29, 2009; this report is included as Appendix L, Biological Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, provides the regulatory framework for the protection of plant and animal species (and their associated critical habitats), which are formally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under the FESA. The FESA has four major components: provisions for listing species, requirements for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), prohibitions against “taking” of listed species, and provisions for permits that allow incidental taking of threatened and endangered species. The FESA also discusses recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. Both the USFWS and the NOAA Fisheries share the responsibility for administration of the FESA. During the CEQA review process, each agency is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed Project to affect listed plants and animals. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, prohibits taking, killing, possessing, transporting, and importing migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests, except when specifically authorized by the U.S. Department of the Interior. As used in the act, the term “take” is defined as meaning, “to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” With a few exceptions, most birds are considered migratory under the MBTA. Disturbances City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or loss of habitat upon which these birds depend would be a violation of the MBTA. Clean Water Act Section 404 & 401 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are defined in Title 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds. The lateral limits of jurisdiction in those waters may be divided into three categories – territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters – and and is determined depending on which type of waters is present (Title 33 CFR Part 328.4(a), (b), (c)). Activities in waters of the United States regulated under Section 404 include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure developments (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 of the CWA requires a federal license or permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). State Regulations California Native Plant Protection Act and California Endangered Species Act The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of “threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California’s rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, the CDFG is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed Project to affect listed plants and animals. Fully Protected Species & Species of Special Concern The classification of “fully protected” was the CDFG’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibian and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (fish at §5515, amphibian and reptiles at §5050, birds at §3511, and mammals at §4700) dealing with “fully protected” species states that these species “…may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species,” although a take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the “fully protected” designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the “take” of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with fully protected species were amended to allow the CDFG to authorize a take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species. Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to the CDFG because the species are declining at a rate that could result in listing or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFG, land managers, consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and associated cumbersome recovery efforts. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA during project review. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 & 3513 According to Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)). Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the MTBA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory non-game bird. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a “take” by the CDFG. California Native Plant Society The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publishes and maintains an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California Inventory) in both hard copy and electronic version (www.cnps.org/rareplants/inventory/6thedition.htm). The Inventory assigns plants to the following categories: • 1A – Presumed extinct in California. • 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. • 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. • 3 – Plants for which more information is needed. • 4 – Plants of limited distribution. Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each category as follows: • 1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80percent of occurrences threatened/high degree of immediacy of threat). • 2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80percent occurrences threatened). • 3 – Not very endangered in California less than 20percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). Plants on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing, and are given special consideration under CEQA during project review. Although plants on List 3 and 4 have little or no protection under CEQA, they are usually included in the project review for completeness. Sensitive Vegetation Communities Sensitive vegetation communities are natural communities and habitats that are either unique, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These resources have been defined by federal, state, and local conservation plans, policies or regulations. The CDFG ranks sensitive City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” and keeps records of their occurrences in its CNDDB. Sensitive vegetation communities are also identified by the CDFG on its List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities and habitats identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by federal or state agencies must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Waters of the State are defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for isolated wetlands and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and may not be regulated by other programs, such as Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program, which regulates discharges of dredged and fill material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification Program. If a proposed project does not require a federal license or permit, but does involve activities that may result in a discharge of harmful substances to waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate such activities under its State authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements or Certification of Waste Discharge Requirements. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation, which serve as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by the CDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.1 Riparian is defined as, “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;” therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself.”2 Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. Local In addition to federal and state regulations, the City of Bakersfield General Plan includes certain goals and policies protecting natural resources. The City has also adopted various ordinances that provide protection to natural resources. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (MBHCP) in 1994 in order to conserve and protect sensitive biological resources within the City on a regional scale. The City received “take” authorization under the MBHCP from USFWS under FESA for the following federally listed species: San Joaquin kit fox, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, Giant kangaroo rat, Bakersfield cactus, California jewelflower, San Joaquin woolythreads, Hoover’s wooly-star, and Kern mallow. “Take” authorization was also granted under the MBHCP by CDFG under CESA for the following state-listed species: San Joaquin kit fox, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard,3 Tipton kangaroo rat, Giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin (Nelson’s) antelope squirrel, Bakersfield cactus, California jewelflower, Tulare pseudobahia, Striped adobe lily, and Bakersfield saltbush. In addition, the following non-listed species are also considered to be covered by the MBHCP, as habitat acquisition obtained through the purchase of habitat land will also benefit these species: San Joaquin pocket mouse, short-nosed kangaroo rat, slough thistle, and recurved larkspur. 1 California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. 2 California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. 3 Although the text of the MBHCP states that take authorization is granted for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, it is still a state “fully protected” species for which a take permit cannot be issued. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The MBHCP and Implementing Agreements and ordinances provide a method of collecting funds for the acquisition and enhancement of habitat land for purposes of creating preserves. Development projects within the Metropolitan area pay mitigation fees which are used to buy habitat lands; currently, this fee is $2,145 per gross acre.4 These lands are managed by wildlife agencies or entities they approve. “Take” avoidance measures for covered species are also listed in the MBHCP, and consists mainly of relocation methods for plants and the San Joaquin kit fox (which includes pre-construction surveys and either relocation of individuals or destruction of dens in coordination with CDFG and USFWS).5 To date, no relocation methods have been approved for small mammals or other animals covered under the MBHCP.6 The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in 2014. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2014 expiration date under the current MBHCP. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2014 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California department of Fish and Game. General Plan The Conservation Element of the City of Bakersfield General Plan includes objectives, policies and programs protecting sensitive biological resources, including sensitive species and natural communities. The General Plan defines “sensitive species” as those plants and animals considered rare, threatened or endangered that enjoy protected (i.e. listed) status from CDFG or USFWS; these species are also covered in the MBHCP. General Plan goals and policies protecting sensitive biological resources include the following: 4 City of Bakersfield Development Services Department. 2009. Planning and Zoning Application Fees. May 27, 2009. (http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/planning/pdfs2006/All_Fees.pdf). 5 Personal Communication. Jenny Eng, Principal Planner, City of Bakersfield. August 8, 2007. 6 Personal Communication. Cheryl Casdorph, Supervising Planner, Special Projects Unit, Kern County. August 8, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Goals 1. Conserve and enhance Bakersfield’s biological resources in a manner which facilitates orderly development and reflects the sensitivities and constraints of these resources. 2. To conserve and enhance habitat areas for designated “sensitive” animal and plant species. Policies 1. Direct development away from “sensitive biological resource” areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented. 2. Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways along rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and channel maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity. 3. Discourage, where appropriate, the use of off-road vehicles to protect designated sensitive biological and natural resources. 4. Determine the feasibility of enhancing sensitive biological habitat and establishing additional wildlife habitat in the study area with State and/or Federal assistance. 5. Determine the locations and extent of suitable habitat areas required for the effective conservation management of designated “sensitive” plant and animal species. 6. Investigate the feasibility of including natural areas selected for the habitat conservation plan as a component of the regional park system. Ordinances Section 17.61.050 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses tree preservation and protection, states that trees voluntarily removed from a project site shall be replaced at the average size of what was removed, not to exceed a forty-eight inch box container size. Such trees shall be replaced within onehundred twenty days of removal and must conform to the original intent of the landscape design. Trees shall be the same species as shown on the project’s approved landscape plan or otherwise meet the provisions of chapter 17.61 of the City’s Zoning Code. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology and Background The information contained in this section is primarily summarized from the Biological Site Assessment Report prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates in November 2007 and updated in May 2009; this report is included as Appendix L, Biological Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Other documents reviewed included the City of Bakersfield General Plan and the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. The potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on-site was initially investigated through a review of existing reports for the proposed Project site (including the aforementioned reports), pertinent literature (including regional floral and faunal guides, resource agency special reports), and current database information (including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)). A complete list of the resources consulted is included in the Biological Site Assessment Report (see Appendix L to this Draft EIR). On-site biological field surveys were conducted on April 20, 2007 and May 12, 2009. All areas were traversed on foot and visually surveyed for plant and animal species (including any observed nesting birds), existing site conditions, and physical characteristics. The types and conditions of the habitats observed within the proposed Project site were evaluated to determine their potential to support special status species and communities. In addition, the site was evaluated to determine whether it contained features that might be considered wetlands or waters subject to federal or state jurisdiction. Plant and animal species observed during the surveys were recorded. Since the site visits conducted in Spring 2007 and 2009 coincided with the reported blooming period for most of the sensitive plant species reported in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, a focused search for these species was also conducted. Existing Conditions Vegetation Habitats Due to the extensive level of disturbance on the proposed Project site it does not support any natural habitats or plant communities, which match established classifications, such as those described in Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California7 or A Manual of 7 Holland. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 California Vegetation.8 Therefore, the habitat classifications given below, and as shown in Figure IV.I-1, Site Features, are based on shared observed characteristics for those areas. These communities were initially mapped and described based on a site visit conducted on April 20, 2007. Based on an additional site visit conducted on May 12, 2009, it was confirmed that site conditions and vegetation community extent, composition and distribution described in this section have not changed since the original site visit. Although 21 sensitive plant communities have been recorded, or have the potential to occur, in the region based on the background research (see Appendix A within the technical report—Appendix L, Biological Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR), no natural plant communities or habitats exist on the proposed Project site. Most of these sensitive plant communities require water (groundwater, rivers or streams, surface ponds) or highly alkaline soils, and all require relatively undisturbed site conditions. Only disturbed, ruderal, developed and basin/sump habitats were observed on the proposed Project site during the April 2007 and May 2009 site visits. Therefore, no sensitive natural communities were observed or are expected to occur on-site. Disturbed Areas Prior to site visits conducted in April 2007 and May 2009, the majority of the site had been recently disturbed by disking, for vegetation management and not for agricultural production (no apparent current evidence of crop production was observed). Based on an examination of aerial photographs of the site,9 it appears that disking occurs regularly. The area immediately north of the railroad tracks was once occupied by large tanks, but recent site conditions observed during the May 2009 site visit indicate that these have been removed and that this area is completely unvegetated and currently occupied by equipment and/or loose exposed soil. Several areas within the northeastern corner of the site are not disked, but appear to be regularly disturbed by vehicles and/or equipment, or possibly graded as these areas are only sparsely vegetated by ruderal plants. 8 Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 9 Google Earth. 2009. Version 3.0.0762; Microsoft Terraserver (http://terraserver.microsoft.com). Basin 1 Basin 2 Sump 1 Sump 2 0 300 600 900 1,200 Feet Legend Project site Site Features Sump Basin Ruderal Disturbed Developed Source: City of Bakersfield, Google Earth and Christopher A. Joseph & Associates; April 2007. Figure IV.I-1 Site Features City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 These disturbed areas, although unvegetated and exhibiting heavily disturbed soils, support limited wildlife including California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) as evidenced by direct observation and burrows, and other small mammals as evidenced by scat and tracks. Most animal evidence was observed near existing structures (sumps, power towers, property fences) where disking activities are limited or do not occur. White wash was observed at several posts, power towers, and buried pipes, indicating that birds utilize these features as perches. Raptors and other birds likely use the disturbed areas for foraging. Common and/or urban-adapted bird species were observed in these areas, including common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Numerous western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis) and one American kestrel (Falco sparverius) were also observed in or adjacent to these disturbed areas. Ruderal Vegetation Several small areas of ruderal vegetation are present where no active management or other activities such as disking, grading or equipment storage occur. One area is just south of the Pan Pacific offices east of Coffee Road, and another area is immediately east of the ConocoPhillips offices at the northern end of the site. These areas support a relatively dense herbaceous layer of non-native annual species, including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), filaree (Erodium botrys), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). A third ruderal area is located just north of Sump 1 on a mound of soil; this mound appears to be recently created, possibly as a result of recent excavated material from the newly improved adjacent sump. This mound supports sparse, widely-spaced annual vegetation including Russian thistle, filaree, fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. menziesii), foxtail barley, black mustard (Brassica nigra), red brome (Bromus madritensis), pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), mallow (Malva sp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and cut leaf evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata). Wildlife use is considered to be similar to that described above for disturbed areas, consisting predominantly of foraging activities by mostly common and/or urban-adapted species. Developed Areas The northern portion of the small parcel east of Coffee Road is occupied by an office complex and paved parking lot (Pan Pacific), and the northernmost portion of the site is also occupied by an office and parking (ConocoPhillips). Some landscaped vegetation such as turfgrass lawn, and cultivated shrubs and trees are associated with the northernmost office complex; no other trees or shrubs are present on-site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Wildlife use is considered to be similar to that described above for disturbed and ruderal areas, consisting predominantly of foraging activities by mostly common and/or urban-adapted species. Basins and Sumps Several basins and sumps exist on the portion of the proposed Project site located west of Coffee Road. The basins are smaller than the sumps and are located in the southwestern portion of this area. The sump areas are located in the southeastern corner of this area west of Coffee Road. Basin 1 is located at the southwest corner of the site (at Brimhall Road and Windsong Road), and Basin 2 is located along the western half of the southern boundary (along Brimhall Road at Harvest Creek Road). Both of these basins are shallow with created sloping and are enclosed by chain link fence. These basins support ruderal vegetation and exhibit evidence of small mammal use (scat, burrows, tracks observed within and outside of fenced areas). The bottoms of these basins exhibit moist soil, the primary source of which appears to be runoff from the adjacent roads. Sump 1 is along Brimhall Road just west of Coffee Road, and Sump 2 is along Coffee Road just north of Brimhall Road. Sump 1 appears to have been recently enlarged as compared to earlier aerial photographs, and as evidenced by new chain link fencing with plastic slats surrounding the sump. In addition, the sump slopes appear recently graded (observed vehicle tracks and lathe in loose, unvegetated soil). The bottom of the sump supports scattered ruderal vegetation and a small pool of water in the southwestern corner at a covered drain culvert. Although no burrows were observed within the fenced area of Sump 1, a small hole was observed under the fence and scat was observed outside the fence at this location and surrounding the entire sump. Sump 2 is also surrounded by chain link and plastic slat fencing, but appears to be older due to the presence of more established and dense ruderal vegetation in the bottom of the sump and around the outside of the fence. The bottom of this sump was moist, but no ponding was observed. Although the basin slopes are unvegetated, due to regular maintenance, several large burrows were observed along these slopes, one of which has a diameter of approximately eight inches. Approximately five to 10 small and large holes were observed under the fence at Sump 2, also accompanied by considerable scat. In addition, many small mammal tracks were observed around the outside of the fence. Sensitive Plants Plant species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or plant species that are proposed or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened, are protected by law and are considered special status species. Plant species which may not be listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed proposed species under City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 FESA or CESA, may be considered rare if assigned a rarity code by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS lists five categories of rarity (Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4). Under CEQA, impact analyses are mandatory for List 1 and 2 species, but not for all List 3 and 4 species as some do not meet the definitions of the Federal Native Plant Protection Act or the California Endangered Species Act; however, List 3 and 4 impacts to these species are generally considered in most CEQA analyses and are recommended by the CNPS.10 Based on the data compilation, background research and two site surveys conducted during April 2007 and May 2009, 21 special status plant species were recorded to occur, or have the potential to occur, in the region. The requirements of these species were evaluated as compared to the conditions observed during the site surveys to to determine their potential to occur on-site. Based on this evaluation, all of these species were considered “not expected” on-site due to varying reasons, including a lack of suitable habitat on-site, the high level of disturbance on-site, and lack of observation during their reported blooming season. All of the special status plant species evaluated are included in a table contained in Appendix A within the technical report, which is presented as Appendix L, Biological Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Wildlife Common Wildlife Wildlife species occurring on the proposed Project site are generally those that have adapted to, and are tolerant of, human activities, and are common in urban areas. Some of these species thrive in urban environments, as they are opportunistic and forage on garbage or roadkill, or find shelter under or within adjacent developed structures; these generally include common species such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), European starling, and raven. Others have adapted to the continuous continuous level of site disturbance and forage on invertebrates and small animals exposed by vegetation removal activities. Amphibian presence was not observed and is not anticipated to be high on-site, due to the lack of water features on-site; however, the basins and sumps may occasionally support common, disturbance-tolerant species such as Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) when they contain water in the winter. Reptiles are likely present on the proposed Project site given the arid conditions, friable soils and areas of open vegetation present for foraging and basking. However, due to the intensity and frequency of site 10 California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 disturbance, general lack of refuge sites (such as shrubby vegetation) its adjacency to roads and development and its isolation from other natural habitats, it is unlikely that the site supports a healthy reptile population. Bird species are common on the proposed Project site, particularly human-tolerant species which likely forage on or adjacent to the site including raven, western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and mourning dove. Some migratory songbirds may nest in landscaped vegetation in the northernmost portion of the site near the ConocoPhillips offices, and in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Other migratory birds may use the site to rest and forage. Mammal species observed and likely to occur on-site are limited to human-tolerant species such as California ground squirrel, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), desert cottontail, and raccoon. Introduced “pest” mammal species may also exist on-site, including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), house mouse (Mus musculus), and black rat. Due to the heavily and frequently disturbed nature of the site, and the level of human activity surrounding the site in adjacent residential, commercial and industrial developments, uncommon or sensitive species are generally not expected or are considered to have a low potential to occur on-site. However, some sensitive species may occur on-site; these are discussed below. Sensitive Wildlife Animal species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA or CESA, or animal species that are proposed or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened, are protected by law and are considered special status species. Animal species which may not be listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed species under FESA or CESA, may be considered rare if assigned a global or state sensitivity ranking by CDFG (1 though 5, with state rankings having an additional ranking of .1, .2, or .3). Migratory birds are also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits killing any migratory bird or disturbing or destroying an active nest of a migratory bird; this list contains hundreds of birds, including many of which are considered common or even nuisance or non-native species. Nesting birds are also protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3512, which prohibits the take of active bird nests. Based on the data compilation, background research and two site surveys, 33 special status wildlife species were recorded, or have the potential to occur, in the region. The requirements of these species recorded in the region were evaluated as compared to the conditions observed during the site surveys to determine their potential to occur on-site. Based on this evaluation, 11 species were determined to have a low potential to occur on-site. One species is considered to have a low-moderate potential, one has a moderate potential, and two have a high potential. Those species with a greater than low potential to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 occur are discussed below. The remaining 18 species are not expected to occur on-site due to varying reasons, including a lack of suitable habitat on-site, the high disturbance and activity level on-site, and/or the lack of known or recent occurrences in the area. All of the wildlife species evaluated are included in a table contained in Appendix A within the technical report, which is presented as Appendix L, Biological Site Assessment, to this Draft EIR. Low-Moderate Potential to Occur On-site San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus). The San Joaquin pocket mouse has been assigned a sensitivity ranking of G4T2T3/S2S3 by CDFG, meaning that the species is considered apparently secure within its global range (G4), but the subspecies is considered between being rare (or having a restricted range) to endangered within its global (T2T3) and and state range (S2S3).11 This species is typically found in grasslands and blue oak savannas, associated with flat to steep terrain with friable soils as well as in areas of alluvial sand soils and wind drifted sands. Although the site is heavily disturbed and isolated and does not support intact grassland or oak savanna habitat, it does have flat terrain with friable, alluvial sand soils. In addition, several occurrences were recorded north of Oildale (north of the proposed Project site) in 2002, and there have been ten total recorded occurrences in the nine-quadrangle vicinity, nine of which were reported in 2002 or 2003.12 Therefore, although the site does not support suitable habitat and is heavily disturbed (which would indicate the species has a low potential), it does support suitable soils and many occurrences have been recorded in the vicinity (which would indicate the species has a moderate potential); therefore, this species is considered to have a low-moderate potential to occur on-site. Moderate Potential to Occur On-site California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). The California horned lark has been assigned a sensitivity ranking of G5T3/S3, meaning that the species is considered secure in its global range (G5), but the subspecies is considered rare or has a reduced range in its global (T3) and state range (S3).13 General habitat for this species includes short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats in coastal regions, the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills. 11 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Special Animals. Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database. May 2009. 12 CDFG. 2009. Natural Diversity Database occurrences for San Joaquin pocket mouse on the Oildale, North of Oildale, Stevens and Knob Hill quadrangles. May 2009. 13 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Special Animals. Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database. February 2006. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Although the proposed Project site is disturbed, suitable habitat is present as this species prefers open fields that have been disked or left fallow. In addition, this species was recently observed in 2006 approximately four miles northwest of the proposed Project site. Therefore, this species is considered to have a moderate potential to both forage and nest on-site. High Potential to Occur On-site Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Burrowing owl is a CDFG Species of Special Concern and has been assigned a sensitivity ranking of G4 and S2, meaning that it is apparently secure within its global range (G4) but is considered endangered within its state range (S2).14 This species nests in small mammal burrows, generally in open, dry areas of annual grassland or desert and scrubland habitats with lowgrowing vegetation. There are two recorded occurrences of of this species on or immediately adjacent to the site in 1987, and in 2006 this species was observed five miles north of the proposed Project site.15 Suitable foraging habitat is present throughout the disturbed and ruderal portions of the site, and suitable nesting habitat is also present, particularly associated with numerous burrows observed along the edges of the site, near power tower bases, and within the fenced sump and basin areas. White wash (excrement) and/or pellets (regurgitated material) were observed in the vicinity of a few of these burrows, although they could not be conclusively attributed to burrowing owls. Therefore, this species is considered to have a high potential to occur on-site. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The San Joaquin kit fox is a Federal endangered and State threatened species. General habitat for this species includes annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Soil requirements are loose-textured sandy soils ideal for burrowing. The proposed Project site has suitable, though disturbed, habitat with appropriate sandy soil conditions. The MBHCP shows several populations surrounding the site along the Kern River, and there are 85 occurrences of this species in the nine-quadrangle vicinity. In addition, recent studies have concluded that San Joaquin kit fox often reside in sumps in urban environments, specifically in Bakersfield, as they represent some of the remaining undeveloped land and are protected from disturbance by fencing.16 Sump 2 on the proposed Project site supported one burrow large enough to be used as a den for San 14 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Special Animals. Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database. February 2006. 15 CDFG. 2009. Natural Diversity Database occurrences for burrowing owl on the Oildale, Rosedale and Gosford quadrangles. May 2009. 16 Frost, N. 2006. San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield. A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University. December 2005. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Joaquin kit fox (approximately eight inches in diameter), and tracks and scat were observed during the April 2007 and May 2009 surveys just outside of the sump near a hole under the fence that appear to be consistent with tracks and scat associated with kit fox.17 Therefore, this species is considered to have a high potential to occur on-site. Nesting Birds Since bird nesting activities are protected under the State Fish and Game Code, and if any are migratory birds they are also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, these bird species are considered to be special status species. Although the habitats on-site are highly disturbed and devoid of natural vegetation and/or habitat complexity generally desired by most birds for nesting, some birds may still nest on-site, particularly species that nest on the ground or in grasslands. Wildlife Movement The movement and migration of wildlife in urban and suburban areas has been substantially altered due to habitat fragmentation over the past century. This fragmentation is most commonly caused by development, which can result in large patches of land becoming inaccessible and forming a virtual barrier between undeveloped areas, or resulting in additional roads which, although narrow, may result in barriers to smaller or less mobile wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation results in isolated “islands” of habitat, which prevents the exchange of genetic material within species populations in different geographic areas necessary to maintain the genetic variability to withstand major environmental disturbances such as fire or climate change.18 A lack of genetic variability within a population may eventually lead to extinction, as it will not have the ability to evolve or adapt to changing conditions over time. The exchange of genetic material within wildlife populations is accomplished through the dispersal of individuals. Animals disperse for different reasons, some following pre-programmed migratory routes while others disperse due to disturbances (development, fire) or scarcity of resources (food, water). In these situations, larger terrestrial species such as deer can often overcome considerable obstacles from urban development, including freeways, large building complexes and tall fences. Smaller, less mobile animals, however, are often confined to remaining fragments of isolated habitat. Generally areas less than several hundred square miles are considered too small to contain major wildlife movement or migratory 17 Murie, O. J. 1974. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Peterson Field Guides, Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York. 18 California Wilderness Coalition, et. al. Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape. (http://www.calwild.org/resources/pubs/linkages/index.htm). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 corridors, but rather these areas may be located within such a route or be considered a secondary pathway. Corridors connect larger areas of land and allow for free genetic exchange within a species population, while pathways may allow for wildlife movement but may not serve to promote the larger exchange and viability of genetic variability between areas. Linkages are considered a type of corridor, as they provide some type of physical connection between habitat areas, such as a drainage or freeway undercrossing; however, depending on the quality or size of the linkage, certain wildlife species may be unable or unlikely to use the linkage. For highly mobile or flying animals, linkages may exist as discontinuous patches of habitat which are close enough to act as “stepping stones” that facilitate movement between larger habitat areas. Land uses adjacent to the proposed Project site include residential uses to the west and south, and commercial uses to the east and southeast. Industrial land uses are also present in the proposed Project vicinity. A decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located to the north, on the north side of the BNSF Railway, and the Big West refinery (formerly known as Flying J) is located further to the east beyond the Friant-Kern Canal. The actual facilities associated with the PG&E power plant are not located immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site. Located further to the north and northeast is the Rosedale Highway commercial corridor (Northwest Promenade, Lowes, etc.). Due to the considerable commercial and industrial development north and east of the proposed Project site, and dense residential development to the west and southwest, the proposed Project site does not provide any viable habitat linkages, and to the extent that there may be remnant habitats on-site, they have become virtual islands of of habitat. The urbanization of Bakersfield and the extensive agricultural development of the southern San Joaquin Valley have effectively isolated remaining fragmented habitats within the City from the undeveloped areas well beyond the urban and agricultural zones, some of which are permanently protected as mitigation under the MBHCP. The areas of habitat on-site may allow for limited movement of larger or more mobile animals (mammals and birds) within the proposed Project site and possibly to the relatively less developed areas to the east and south toward the Kern River; however, there are no functional linkages between the site and larger preserved habitat areas outside the urban/agricultural limits due to the multiple roads, railways and canals impeding possible travel corridors. Wildlife movement between the site and remaining undeveloped habitat along the Kern River and beyond the urban/agricultural limits is likely to be very limited (except for bird species) due to the lack of physical linkages and and existing barriers (roads, concrete canals), and may occasionally occur for only the most mobile terrestrial species as “accidental” incidents, possibly facilitated by disturbances causing an individual to panic and flee the site, and likely only at night when the considerable barriers of traffic and human disturbance activities in the surrounding urban environment are at their lowest levels. Although limited wildlife movement may infrequently occur between the proposed Project site and areas to the east and south, such movement is very unlikely to result in eventual movement to intact, preserved habitats beyond the City limits and, therefore, the proposed Project site does not act as a wildlife corridor, movement pathway, or linkage of note between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Jurisdictional Features The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the placement of fill material into “waters of the U.S.”, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. CDFG also regulates the placement of material into, the dredging or use of material from, or the diversion of water from lakes or streambeds under Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code. The State Water Resources Control Board, through Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulates impacts to water quality within “waters of the State” under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the State’s Porter-Cologne Act. The proposed Project site does not support any natural wetlands or water features (such as ponds or steams). However, the site does contain four artificial features designed to receive and hold water – two basins and two sumps. These features on-site would not be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as these features are not natural, appear to have been constructed in uplands,19 and are designed to function as settling basins. These basins and sumps are also not considered to be jurisdictional by CDFG under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code regulating streambed and lake alterations, as these features are not considered “lakes” as they do not pond water for a sufficient duration to support aquatic life (such as fish, waterfowl, riparian vegetation); in addition, the “bed” and “banks” are artificially created and regularly maintained by the City. The basins and sumps are not naturally occurring; they were constructed and designed by the City to address drainage and water quality issues, as they function as settling basins. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it would: (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, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 19 Based on the level topography, the sandy texture of the soils (low capacity to hold water), and the fact that the soil types mapped on site (Cajon and Wasco soils) are not hydric (USDA. 1995. Hydric Soils of the U.S., California portion), it is unlikely that the Project site historically supported wetlands. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (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; (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site; (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or (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. In addition, under the Mandatory Findings of Significance in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it would “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.” Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to biological resources. Project Impacts Potential impacts from the proposed Project to biological resources on-site are discussed below, including mitigation measures for avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for such impacts. Plants and Vegetation Protected Trees The proposed Project may remove the approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices at the northernmost portion of the site. However, none of these trees are City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 considered protected trees under the zoning code.20 Further, the proposed Project would provide abundant trees and landscaping as part of an approved landscape plan. Special Status Plants Although 21 special status plant species were recorded to occur (i.e., the species was reported as being present somewhere in the region, in either the CNDDB, the CNPS Electronic Inventory, or other sources reviewed), or have the potential to occur, in the region, none are expected on-site based on a lack of suitable habitat, highly disturbed conditions, and/or lack of observation during the site surveys. Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts to special status plants. Sensitive Plant Communities No sensitive plant communities or natural plant communities on the proposed Project site were observed and none are expected to occur on the site because of the disturbed, ruderal and developed condition of the site; therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant communities. Wildlife Common Wildlife Implementation of the proposed Project could result in harm, disturbance, displacement, or loss of some of the common wildlife species residing on-site, particularly the less mobile species such as reptiles or small mammals. These impacts could result during construction activities from physical habitat removal, noise, and other disturbances, or during post-construction operation from increased noise levels, lighting, and domestic animals. Although these impacts would be considered adverse, they would not be considered significant under CEQA as these species are considered common and widespread, particularly in urban and suburban areas. Therefore, potential Project impacts with respect to common wildlife would be less than significant. 20 Personal Communication. Paul Hellman, Principal Principal Planner, City of Bakersfield. Telephone Conversation, July 25, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Special Status Wildlife Although 33 special status wildlife species were recorded to occur, or have the potential to occur, in the region, 11 are considered to have a low potential to occur on-site and 18 are not expected; therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts with respect to these species. There is a low-moderate potential for San Joaquin pocket mouse to occur on-site, a moderate potential for California horned lark to occur on-site, and a high potential for burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox to occur on-site. Potential Project impacts to these species, if present, could result in harm, death, displacement and/or disruption of breeding activities during grading activities as well as result in a permanent loss of habitat; these impacts are concluded to be significant. However, with the implementation implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1, requiring compliance with the MBHCP, potential Project impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse would be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-2, restricting grading activities during the nesting period for California horned lark or conducting pre-construction surveys and requiring temporary avoidance buffers for any nesting individuals, would reduce direct potential Project impacts to California horned lark nesting to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would not substantially reduce or have a substantial adverse effect on habitat as the region supports abundant suitable habitat for this species. With implementation of Mitigation Measure I-3, requiring protocol-level burrowing owl surveys and, if found, passive relocation and off-site habitat mitigation, potential direct and indirect Project impacts to burrowing owl would be reduced to a less than significant level. Project construction activities (grading) could harm or disrupt nesting birds and/or their eggs or young; this potential impact may be considered a significant impact as nesting activities are protected, but implementation of Mitigation Measure I-2 would reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. The disturbed and ruderal habitats on-site may be used as foraging habitat for raptors and other birds which could be transients on-site. However, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce or have a substantial adverse effect on foraging habitat, as there are more extensive regional habitats for foraging in the surrounding vicinity. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the removal of potential foraging habitat would be less than significant. Wildlife Movement The proposed Project site is not considered a major wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage. Considerable urban development exists around the proposed Project site, particularly along the western and northern boundaries and the majority of the southern and eastern boundaries, such that the remnant habitat on-site has become a virtual island. Although limited wildlife movement may occur between the proposed Project site and areas to the east and south along the Kern River, such movement is likely infrequent and accidental and, therefore, the proposed Project site does not act as a wildlife corridor, movement pathway, or linkage of note between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. In addition, the site conditions are City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 heavily disturbed and degraded due to recent and past intensive site uses; no natural habitat exists on-site and it is isolated from other natural habitats in the region. These conditions preclude the use of the site as a native wildlife nursery site. Native wildlife nursery sites are generally located in areas with optimal habitat conditions providing plentiful food and protection from disturbance, facilitating successful rearing of young for a wildlife population over generations. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife migration, movement corridors, or native nursery sites. Jurisdictional Features No natural water or wetland features are present on the proposed Project site. Although artificiallycreated basins and sumps are present, these would not be considered jurisdictional as wetlands or “waters of of the U.S.” by the Corps or as “lakes” by CDFG. However, these features may be considered “waters of the State”, such that the removal or placement of material into these basins and sumps may be subject to regulation by the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act. Although these basins and sumps were created to remedy water quality issues, their modification may require permitting through the RWQCB. Compliance with Local Policies and Plans As stated above, the City’s zoning ordinance regulating the removal of trees does not apply to this proposed Project; therefore, the proposed Project is in compliance with this ordinance and potential Project impacts to City protected trees would be less than significant. The proposed Project complies with the City’s General Plan goals and policies protected sensitive biological resources, as the proposed Project does not support any sensitive biological resource areas, natural areas or riparian vegetation and, therefore, potential Project impacts relative to the City’s General Plan goals and policies for protecting sensitive biological resources would be less than significant. The proposed Project would comply with the MBHCP through the implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1, which requires compliance including paying the required development fee and conducting preconstruction activities to reduce “take” of the San Joaquin kit fox (relocation and/or removal of dens per applicable agency guidelines). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1, the potential Project impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse would be reduced to a less than significant level. Summary of Impacts The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to protected trees, special status plants, plant communities, common wildlife, wildlife movement, and jurisdictional features. The proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project may result in potentially significant impacts to special status wildlife species, including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds; however, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3. The proposed Project would be in compliance with local policies and ordinances, and would be in compliance with the MBHCP through the implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1. Per the Mandatory Findings of Significance, the proposed Project would not have a significant environmental impact on biological resources. The proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, as the site is already heavily disturbed, developed and/or degraded. The proposed Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause such a population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, as the site currently supports minimal habitat for plant and wildlife species and any potential impacts to sensitive species that might occur on-site would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3. The proposed Project would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community or an important example of a major period of California history or prehistory, as the site supports disturbed and degraded habitats that are common in the region. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed Project in combination with the other related projects (refer to Table III-3 Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting) within the City (or the City’s sphere of influence)21 would result in the continued development of land within the City of Bakersfield. Of these related projects, most exhibit the disturbed habitat conditions similar to that observed on the proposed Project site22 and are located in similar proximity to existing developed areas and/or other similarly disturbed adjacent lands. As such, most of these related projects have the potential to support similar sensitive biological resources including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds. Potential impacts to these sensitive biological resources from the related projects, when considered with the potential impacts to these resources from the proposed Project, may result in cumulatively considerable adverse impacts. However, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures for the proposed Project, and given the fact that other related projects 21 City of Bakersfield. 2009. Cumulative Projects Map (as of April16, 2009). Planning Department. http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityse rvices/devsrv/development_maps/pdfs_maps/CUM_PROJ.pdf. 22 22 Google Earth, version 4.0. May 27, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 with similar potential impacts would also be required to implement similar mitigation measures for these sensitive resources under their CEQA evaluations and regulatory agency requirements, the proposed Project’s potential impacts to sensitive biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. In addition, most, if not all, of the related projects would be required to comply with the MBHCP with regard to paying the development fee and implementing “take” avoidance measures. The MBHCP was designed to consider the cumulative effect of land development in the City of Bakersfield as a whole by designating and preserving lands that have a higher biological value and that exist in large, contiguous areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources in the region have effectively been addressed by the analysis contained in, and the implementation of, the MBHCP. MITIGATION MEASURES I-1. To avoid impacting San Joaquin kit fox, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for the San Joaquin kit fox, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of offsite San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any San Joaquin kit fox identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying San Joaquin kit fox habitat land within Kern County. b) Within 30 days of initial ground disturbance, preconstruction clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the provisions of the MBHCP. Any potential, inactive or active kit fox dens dens identified as unavoidable, be monitored, excavated and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of the MBHCP and all guidelines, protocols and other provisions of the CDFG, USFWS, Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Survey windows for the San Joaquin kit fox can occur at anytime throughout the year. The survey shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department, prior to approval of a grading permit. c) Prior to earth disturbance phases of construction, all construction personnel shall be trained in sensitive species identification and avoidance techniques and be instructed to be on the lookout for kit fox dens during earth disturbance. Proof of training shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Any evidence, such as dens, observed at any time during construction, shall be promptly reported to the reviewing agencies for resolution. d) During construction, all pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be kept capped to prevent entry of the kit fox. If not capped or otherwise covered, the openings shall be inspected twice daily in the morning and evening and prior to burial or closure, to ensure no kit foxes or other wildlife become entrapped or buried in pipes. I-2. To avoid impacting nesting birds, the following mitigation must be implemented: a) Prior to grading, the Project Applicant shall pay the habitat mitigation fee in accordance with section 15.78.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and the MBHCP. If the MBHCP is not extended past the expiration date of 2014, then during the time when no applicable MBHCP is in place, the Project Applicant shall comply with such mitigation measures as shall be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) including, but not limited to, the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Fund, and/or purchase, the appropriate number of credits in a mitigation bank or conservation program for sensitive and nesting birds, which is approved by the applicable regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFG). Contribute the appropriate funding to an organization, which is approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG), that provides for the preservation of offsite habitat for sensitive and nesting birds. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribute the appropriate funding and follow the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) guidelines, including obtaining the required permits, to enable the relocation of any sensitive or nesting birds identified on-site. During the life of the project, if a HCP is adopted by the City of Bakersfield, or other responsible agency, that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the Project Applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of habitat impacts to sensitive or nesting birds. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the Project Applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate regulatory oversight agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) agreeing to the participation, and the Project Applicant shall submit written verification of compliance to the City of Bakersfield with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying sensitive and nesting bird habitat land within Kern County. b) Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of any previously unidentified protected species, which are not addressed in the MBHCP. If encountered, the USFWS and CDFG shall be notified of previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to the CDFG and USFWS. No activities shall occur until Incidental Take authorization has been obtained from the CDFG and USFWS. I-3. To avoid adverse impacts to Burrowing Owl, the following measures shall be implemented: a) Seven days prior to the onset of construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a qualified biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the proposed Project’s impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.I. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.I-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFG. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities are required until nests are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist: 1) clearing limits shall be established within a 500 foot buffer around any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 300 feet of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If an active nest is observed during the non-nesting season, the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the biologist will flush any raptor to open space areas. A qualified biologist, or construction personnel under the direction of the qualified biologist, will then remove the nest site so raptors cannot return to a nest. b) The Project Applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys prior to ground disturbance to ensure that no burrowing owls are present on-site and to ensure avoidance of direct take or accidental entrapment of burrowing owls. If nests are encountered, the use of agency LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1, involving compliance with the MBHCP and pre-construction as well as construction measures, would reduce potential Project impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-2, involving payment of mitigation fees and pre-construction measures, would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-3 involving surveys for, relocations of, and buffers to burrowing owls, would reduce potential Project impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS J. CULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to identify the potential for cultural resources to occur on the proposed Project site and to assess the significance of such resources. The term “cultural resources” is used to collectively refer to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the National or California Register of Historical Resources, or which is designated at a local level as having a historic importance. Historical resources are places or objects that are important for scientific, historical, and religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Historical resources may include archaeological sites, architectural remains, and other artifacts that provide evidence of past human activity. Historical resources can also include places of importance in the traditions of a society. Archaeological resources are the material remains of past human life and behavior. These resources can have scientific, cultural, religious, and educational value. Paleontology is a branch of the scientific disciplines of geology and biology which studies the life forms from the past, especially prehistoric life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Local paleontological resources preserve an aspect of California history and a record of the geological and biological formation of the region. Information and analysis in this section is based upon the Cultural Resources and Paleontological Survey prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., dated November 2007 and the Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285, prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., dated August 2008. The reports are included in Appendices M, Cultural Resources and Paleontological Survey, and N, Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285, respectively, of this Draft EIR. The analysis in this section has been prepared in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which considers potential impacts to prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Cultural Setting Prehistory The earliest evidence of human occupation in the vicinity of the proposed Project area was found deeply buried below the surface on the western shore of Buena Vista Lake, located approximately 15 miles southwest of Bakersfield, which was radiocarbon dated at approximately 8,000 years before present (B.P.). Available evidence indicates that the area was frequented at an early date by bands of hunters preying on large herds of game animals. By 1500 B.P., the native inhabitants had developed a culture of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 greater material wealth and a diversified subsistence pattern through wider exploitation of the resources available within the unique lake-slough-marsh environments present within the San Joaquin Valley. Ethnography The late prehistoric Yokuts inhabited nearly all of the San Joaquin Valley as well as the lower Sierra Nevada foothills south of the Fresno River. Eighteenth-century Valley Yokuts may have numbered 41,000 persons, making them the largest ethnic group in California at that time. Three divisions of Yokuts—Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill—were composed of 60 tribelets, each containing a few hundred to several thousand individuals. After A.D. 1770, the native populations of the San Joaquin Valley were reduced by disease, and settlement patterns were disrupted (as in many parts of California) as a result of Spanish colonial expeditions and mission recruitment and the epidemic of 1833. By approximately 1850, of the estimated 15,700 people constituting the 15 tribelets of the Southern Valley Yokuts, only approximately 3,680 were estimated to still be living. History In 1776, Spanish missionaries visited the area now known as Bakersfield. The missionaries returned to their base at Mission San Gabriel following a route through the Tehachapi Mountains that functioned as the primary road until 1876, when the Southern Pacific Railroad created an alternate route. In 1827, a 17-man expedition led by Jedediah Smith entered the region and signaled the earliest American presence in the Kern County area. After Smith’s visit, other trappers followed until about 1837, by which time fur-bearing animals had been nearly exterminated from the valley. The Kern County area remained the province of several Native American groups and were relatively isolated from Euro-American influences until 1853 when gold was discovered in the hills near the Greenhorn Mountains, about one mile northwest of the Kern River and 30 miles northeast of Bakersfield. Thousands of gold seekers poured into the Kern River valley. Ferries were established on major waterways, hotels and trading posts were constructed, and stage lines began carrying mail and passengers. In 1899, rich oil fields were discovered near McKittrick and a new influx of immigrants occurred. Agriculture became prominent, and cotton was the primary crop. Modern Bakersfield evolved, in part, from the reclamation of swamp lands known as Kern Island. Originally settled in 1860, Kern Island underwent development initiated in 1863 by Colonel Thomas Baker and his family. In 1866, the California State Legislature created Kern County, naming Havilah as the county seat. Bakersfield became an incorporated city in 1874 and that same year displaced Havilah as the county seat. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The settlement and growth of Bakersfield began in earnest with the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad. In 1873, the Southern Pacific constructed lines that connected San Francisco, Sacramento, and the eastern United States with Los Angeles. By 1873, Southern Pacific had laid track through Kern County and founded the town of Delano. The railroad built stations at Sumner, several miles east of Bakersfield, and at Summit (later known as Tehachapi), in the Tehachapi Pass, bypassing Bakersfield because city boosters refused to satisfy the railroad’s request for large land concessions. Bakersfield residents quickly organized a small rail system that connected Bakersfield to Sumner and the Southern Pacific’s national lines. In 1893, Sumner incorporated as Kern City and in 1910 merged into the city of Bakersfield. Today the area is known as East Bakersfield. Table IV.J-1 Previously Identified Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area Primary Number/Trinomial Site Type USGS Quadrangle Township, Range, Section Reference P-15-003290/CA-KER-3290Ha Historic trash scatter Oildale T 29S, R 27E, Sec. 29 Parr and Osborne (1992) P-15-003291/CA-KER-3291Ha Historic trash scatter Oildale T 29S, R 27E, Sec. 21 Parr and Osborne (1992) P-15-006439a Residence Oildale T 29S, R 27E, Sec. 29 Hudlow (1997) P-15-007233b Calloway Canal multiple multiple Apper (1996) P-15-009109/CA-KER-765Ha Historic trash scatter Oildale T 29S, R 27E, Sec. 28 Parr and Osborne (1992) P-15-010871b Pole barn Gosford T 29S, R 28E, Sec. 32 Denardo (2003) None Friant-Kern Canalc multiple multiple None Notes: a NRHP eligibility not evaluated. b Ineligible to NRHP. c Eligible to NRHP. Source: Applied EarthWorks, Inc., June 2007. Regulatory Framework Federal Enacted in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has become the foundation and framework for historic preservation in the United States. The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); it establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as an independent federal entity; requires federal agencies to take into City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, affords the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP; and makes the heads of all federal agencies responsible for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by their agencies. Primarily, Section 106 of the NHPA governs federal regulations for cultural resources. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register eligibility are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60. Amendments to the NHPA (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations are applicable only in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or if it uses federal money. A historic property does not have to be nominated for, or listed in, the NRHP to be afforded protection under the NHPA; most of the properties managed under this and other federal historic preservation authorities have never been nominated for the NRHP. The significance of a historic district, site, building, structure or object (and thus its required consideration under the law) is determined by the property’s eligibility for the NRHP with respect to the criteria set forth in 36 CFR 60.4. State State historic preservation regulations affecting the proposed Project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 20183.2 and 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources (see the Historical Resources description below for additional information). A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (California 1999:14). Effects on cultural properties that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources can be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. Guidance on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The technical advisory series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associates and societies be solicited as part of the process of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains and associated grave materials regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Historic Register In 1992, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 into law, establishing the California Register. The California Register is an authoritative guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon the National Register criteria. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places, State Landmarks and State Points of Interest. The State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) maintains the California State Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) are automatically listed on the CRHR, along with State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The OHP also administers the California Register of Historical Landmarks and California Points of Local Historical Interest programs (APPS 2003:10). SB 18 Tribal Consultation The intent of Senate Bill (SB) 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural resources. SB 18 requires local governments to consult with and provide notice to tribes prior to the adoption and/or amendment of both general plans and specific plans. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources include fossil remains, their respective fossil sites, and the fossil-bearing strata and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data. In California, paleontological resources are protected by CEQA Appendix G, which addresses impacts on fossil sites and California Administrative Code Title 14, Section 5097.5. Section 5097.5 indicates that no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or any other paleontological feature, situated on public City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands, violation of which is a misdemeanor. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Records Search On February 22, 2007, prior to the field survey, a records search for the proposed Project area was conducted at the California Historical Resource Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB). The records search identified prehistoric and historical cultural resources and previous archaeological investigations conducted within the proposed Project site as well as in a 0.5-mile radius surrounding the proposed Project site. The records search included a review of site records and maps on file in addition to a review of the quarterly directory of historic properties listed in the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) data file, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places. The records search showed that three previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted on portions of the proposed Project site. None of these investigations identified any cultural resources on the proposed Project site. One additional survey was conducted within the 0.5-mile records search area but did not include any of the proposed Project site. Six cultural resources were identified within the 0.5-mile study radius as a result of the records search as shown in Table IV.J-1, Previously Identified Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area, above. None of the resources are located within the proposed Project site. One of the resources, the Friant-Kern Canal, is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a component of the Central Valley Project. Although the canal has been recorded elsewhere, it has not been formally documented within Kern County. Field Survey An intensive pedestrian survey of the 255-acre proposed Project area was performed by archaeologists Jay Lloyd and Shane James on March 17-19, 2007. The study area was systematically traversed on foot using transects spaced 15–20 meters apart. Surface visibility was generally good and ranged from less than 20 percent to 100 percent. Because dense seasonal grasses obscured portions of the areas surveyed, cut banks, rodent holes, and all areas of exposed ground were closely examined for evidence of cultural City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 materials and features. Where feasible, vegetation was scraped away by trowel to expose the ground surface. Each newly discovered cultural resource within the proposed Project area, as described further below, was assigned a unique temporary field reference number. An intensive surface inspection was conducted at each site using parallel and meandering transects spaced 1–2 meters apart. To facilitate mapping and boundary definition, pin flags and flagging tape were used to mark the extent of surface-visible artifacts. Cultural materials were documented on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Records (DPR 523A) and Archaeological Site Records (DPR 523C), and plotted onto the appropriate USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Locational information was obtained for each site with a Garmin etrex Vista C Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, employing the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinated system and the 1983 North American Datum. Cultural materials were photographed using a Nikon Coolpix 800 digital camera. The photographs include as much of the adjoining landform as possible and document the degree of disturbance and general integrity at each site and feature. Archaeological and Historic Resources Historical resources are places or objects that are important for scientific, historical, and religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Historical resources may include archaeological sites, architectural remains, and other artifacts that provide evidence of past human activity. Historical resources can also include places of importance in the traditions of a society. To determine impacts to historical resources, it is necessary to assess the significance of resources and the effects of a project on their significance. The significance of resources in a project area is based on their importance to scientific-historic research, their importance to Native Americans, and their educational and community value for the general public. Area South of Railroad Tracks and West of Coffee Road This portion of the proposed Project site is completely open with 100 percent visibility. Modern debris is scattered throughout the field but is much denser closer to the railroad lines and along Coffee Road. A few scattered pieces of historic material (e.g., amethyst glass, transfer-print ceramics) were also identified but not in any observable pattern and/or concentration that would indicate the presence of an archaeological deposit. Several structures associated with the oil industry are located near the railroad tracks as well as several abandoned agricultural implements. Two sump areas operated by the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works are also located within this portion of the proposed Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 During the survey, approximately six pieces of burned bone were observed within an area approximately 1-meter square. Due to their highly fragmented nature, it was not possible to definitively determine whether or not they were human. However, their density, appearance, and morphology were all consistent with human remains. No further evidence of prehistoric occupation (flaked or ground stone, shell, etc.) was observed at the time. As the bones could not be ruled out as potentially human, the Kern County Coroner’s office was called to assess the find. On March 29, 2007, Regina Mancera (Investigator), Linda Baker (Forensic Anthropologist), and Heidi Dupuis (Technician) of the Kern County Coroner’s office made a field visit to evaluate the discovery. They concurred with the initial assessment that the bones were consistent with human remains but were too fragmented to definitively identify. Based on this assumption, coupled with the fact that the bones were heavily burned, Mancera called Commander Chris Speer of the coroner’s office who then directed Mancera to contact detectives at the Bakersfield Police Department. Detectives Don Kruger and Jeffrey Burdick of the Bakersfield Police Department visited the site but deferred the investigation to the coroner’s office until the nature of the find could be assessed. Commander Speer was also present and directed Mancera to continue the investigation. On March 30, 2007, Mancera, Baker, and Kelly Cowan (Senior Investigator) with the Kern County Coroner, along with archaeologist Jay Lloyd, continued the investigation. Following coroner’s office procedures, a 10-by-10-foot grid was set up over the area of discovery and divided into sixteen 2.5-by-2.5-foot squares. Each square was manually excavated to an average depth of 3 inches, and the excavated sediment was screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Although burned bone was recovered from every grid square, along with one obsidian flake, the origin of the bone (human vs. nonhuman) could not be determined. Subsequent to the excavation of the grid, a 50-centimeter-diameter shovel test probe was excavated in the floor of Grid Square 1 in an attempt to characterize the deposits’ depth and density. A partial tooth was recovered from the 20–40 centimeter level. Robert Yohe, Professor of Anthropology at California State University Bakersfield (CSUB), positively identified the tooth as an artiodactyl (e.g., antelope, deer, or goat) incisor after an unsuccessful identification attempt by Forensic Odontologist Dr. Bob Reed. A further review of the excavated bone fragments from the grid resulted in the identification of an additional tooth, an artiodactyl molar fragment. Based on the presence of the two artiodactyl teeth fragments and because the bone fragments are all consistent with an animal of that size, the coroner’s office was satisfied that the remains are faunal and not human. The obsidian flake and the burned bone indicate that the site is prehistoric, and it was assigned a temporary designation of 1586-SITE-JL-1 and later assigned a permanent designation of CAKER-7285 (P-15-012881). As discussed in the Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285 provided in Appendix N, Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285, of this Draft EIR, archaeological testing at CAKER-7285 was completed from the 19th through the 23rd of February 2008. Archaeological testing at CA City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 KER-7285 was intended to identify the site’s significant associative and research values through the definition of the site’s vertical and horizontal extent; the description of the contents, stratigraphy, and spatial distribution of artifacts and features; the identification of archaeological data potentials and integrity; the definition of the site’s relationship to the project area; and an assessment of the potential for construction to affect site integrity and significant qualities, if present. Testing also sought to gather sufficient information to plan for site treatment, if necessary, through either avoidance or mitigative excavation. Fieldwork at CA-KER-7285 began with an intensive pedestrian survey of the immediate site vicinity. A grid of eight shovel test pits was then set up. The grid consisted of shovel test pits at 20-meter intervals laid out in each of the cardinal directions centered on the site datum. Another 16 shovel test pits were used to confirm the extent of the cultural deposit. Standard 50-centimeter-diameter shovel test pits were excavated in 20-centimeter arbitrary levels and sediments were screened through 1/8-inch hardware mesh screen. Excavators recorded the results by level on a standard shovel test pit record for each unit. The forms provide provenience information and describe the type and condition of the cultural material (if any). Test excavation units, used to maximize the amount of recovered cultural material, measured 1 by 1 meter and were excavated in 10-centimeter arbitrary levels. All of the excavated sediments were screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Excavator(s) completed a standardized unit level record for each level of each unit to document the cultural constituents (or lack thereof) and the stratigraphy and sediments observed. The field supervisor examined each unit for stratigraphic boundaries and soil characteristics, which were then recorded on a soil profile form. Upon completion of the excavation, the crew backfilled the shovel test pits and test excavation units and restored the area to approximate its original contour. The two test excavation units, however, were placed adjacent to the site datum in an attempt to maximize the amount of recovered cultural material. The shovel test pits were terminated after two consecutive culturally sterile levels. The maximum depth of cultural material in the shovel test pits was 80 centimeters, therefore both test excavation units were extended to a depth of 80 centimeters regardless of whether or not cultural material was encountered. A total of 6.632 cubic meters of soil was excavated during testing. Testing at CA-KER-7285 produced a cultural assemblage containing seven pieces of debitage, 17 pieces of burned faunal bone, 11 historic glass fragments (e.g., amethyst, green, opalized), and three pieces of charcoal. Most (92.1 percent) of the artifacts were recovered from the upper 60 centimeters of the deposit; however, items were observed to depths as great as 80 centimeters below the surface. Mechanical trenching was used to expose buried sediments to provide a larger exposure of the landscape. The trenches were also designed to locate cultural deposits, if present, that were not evident from the ground surface. To this end, eight trenches were excavated by a backhoe along the fringes of the site at City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 each of the cardinal directions. The location, interval, and depth of each trench were directed by the Field Supervisor. In general, each trench was excavated to a depth of about 5 feet and a length of about 15 feet. No cultural material was recovered from the trenches. All cultural material recovered from CA-KER-7285 and the associated forms were transported to a laboratory in Fresno and processed. Two bulk samples of faunal material were analyzed for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating. This test proved to be unsuccessful as the faunal material lacked any extractable collagen. While the absence of collagen can be result of natural degradation due to extreme age, it also can be degraded and/or removed by many other processes—bleaching by the sun; leaching by water; partial heating, burning or cooking; microbial activities; the replacement of collagen by other minerals. Therefore, the burned bone cannot be used as a reliable temporal indicator. As a rather small, circumscribed artifact assemblage was recovered from the CA-KER-7285, it is not possible to make any definitive statements regarding site function. The presence of flaked stone material and burned mammal bone, however, likely indicates hunting and cooking of locally available faunal species, yet the nature of this interaction remains unclear. Historic glass fragments date to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, due to the lack of historical features or evidence of occupation, the era of deposition at the site cannot be determined. Complete documentation of the cultural resource, excluding a confidential location map, is provided in Appendix N, Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of CA-KER-7285, of this Draft EIR. This documentation has been submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for inclusion in the California Historical Resources Information System. Pending additional consultation with the Tejon Tribe regarding the future disposition and curation of the collected artifacts, the collection and accompanying documents are temporarily curated in a secure storage area in a Fresno laboratory. Area South of Railroad Tracks and East of Coffee Road This portion of the proposed Project site includes an open field, a field covered with vegetation, and an industrial use area. Visibility ranged from less than 20 percent in the vegetation-covered field to more than 80 percent in the open field and in the industrial area. No cultural resources were observed. Area North of Railroad Tracks and East of Coffee Road This area consists of the remains of a tank farm that is in the process of being dismantled. Visibility was generally around 80 percent. All of the holding tanks have been removed, leaving only the graveled pads and retaining dikes. There is a large borrow pit in the southeast corner of the area. Two active oil wells and several tanks (holding, wastewater, fire water) are still on site. The area has been actively used for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 some time and the landscape has been completely altered to fit industrial needs. No cultural resources were observed. Native American Consultation Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3 and SB 18, the City contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 7, 2007 to request a Tribal Consultation List with contact information for the tribes identified by the NAHC as having traditional lands or cultural resources within the proposed Project vicinity. The NAHC responded with a list of the following tribal entities: • Santa Rosa Rancheria; • Tejon Indian Tribe; • Tule River Indian Tribe; • Tubatulabal, Kawaiisu, Koso, Yokuts Indian Tribes; • Yowlumne, Kitanemuk Indian Tribes; • Foothill Yokuts, Mono Indian Tribes; • Paiute, Yokuts Tubatulabal Indian Tribes; and • Chumash Indian Tribe. The City sent consultation letters to each of the NAHC-listed tribal entities on December 7, 2007, inviting each group to consult with them directly regarding the potential for the presence of Native American cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. As of the completion of the 90-day comment period, no correspondence was received requesting consultation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento was again informed of the proposed Project on February 21, 2007 and provided a list of parties to be contacted regarding any information they might have with respect to locations of sacred or special sites of cultural and spiritual significance in the proposed Project area. The NAHC also performed a search of the sacred lands file which failed to indicate the presence of any recorded Native American cultural resources in the immediate proposed Project area. On February 27, 2007, letters were mailed to the list of parties provided by NAHC. The correspondence provided the location of the proposed development and requested any information the representatives may City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 have regarding sacred or other sites of cultural importance in the study area. As requested by the NAHC, a follow-up telephone call was placed approximately two weeks after delivery of the letter. David Paul Dominguez, Cultural Resource Manager of the Chumash Council of Bakersfield, responded by telephone on March 7, 2007 and asked to assist with the field survey. Dominguez was present during most of the field effort. Fieldwork testing was coordinated with the Tejon Tribe, which provided three Native American monitors: Janice Morgan; Gloria Morgan; and, Taori Morgan. All were present and assisted the field crew during archaeological testing of CA-KER-7285. The Cultural Resource Management Team for the Tejon Indian Tribe submitted a letter on May 18, 2007 in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project. To date, no other response has has been received and no concerns have been expressed by the other contacted representatives. Copies of the correspondence with the NAHC and Native American parties are provided in Appendix M, Cultural Resources and Paleontological Survey, to this Draft EIR. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains, imprints or traces of prehistoric animals and plants preserved in rocks and sediments. Fossils are considered nonrenewable resources because the organisms from which they derive typically no longer exist, and, once destroyed, a fossil can never be replaced. The significance of any particular fossil or fossiliferous formation depends on its rarity, regional uniqueness, and its diagnostic or taxonomic value. Fossils are important scientific and educational resources because of their use in: (1) documenting the presence and evolutionary history of particular groups of now-extinct organisms, (2) reconstructing the environments in which these organisms lived, and (3) determining the relative ages of the strata in which they occur and of the geologic events that resulted in the deposition of the sediments that formed these strata and in their subsequent deformation. Fossils also can be deemed important if they are unusual, spectacular, or rare and in danger of being depleted or destroyed. Significance of paleontological resources can be rated from high to low depending upon the resource sensitivity of impacted rock formations. A search of the paleontological collection records search and resource assessment from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section was requested. In a response letter dated March 15, 2007, the museum noted that they do not have “any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project boundaries, nor do we have any fossil vertebrate localities anywhere nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur at the surface in the proposed project area”. However, the museum did note that important fossils fossils have been discovered in the deeper Late Miocene and Pliocene deposits known as the Kern River Formation. Although surface and/or shallow excavations are unlikely to encounter this deeper formation, the museum recommends paleontological monitoring of any “deep and substantial excavations”. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a significant impact on cultural resources if the project would: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. For purposes of CEQA, to determine whether cultural resources could be significantly affected, the significance of the resource itself must first be determined. Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates a finding of significance if if a project would eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect on the environment if it “may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” A “substantial adverse change” means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource is impaired.” Material impairment means altering “…in an adverse manner those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.” Impacts to those cultural resources not determined to be significant according to the significance criteria described above are not considered significant for the purposes of CEQA. Historical Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource (including both built environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) is presumed significant if the structure is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission. A historical resource may also be considered significant if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. A cultural resource shall generally be considered “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR including the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Archaeological Resources Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not otherwise determined to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the following criteria: 1. The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2. The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3. The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. A non-unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Non-unique archaeological resources receive no further consideration under CEQA. Human Remains According to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are spelled out under Public Resources Code Section 5097. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Paleontological Resources According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect if it would directly or indirectly destroy or degrade a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to cultural resources. Project Impacts Historical Resources The records search and field survey did not identify any historic resources within the proposed Project site and identified only six sites within 0.5 miles of the proposed Project, of which only one is considered eligible for (but is not listed on) the NRHP. Therefore, no historic resources are present on or adjacent to the proposed Project site and the proposed Project would have no potential for direct or indirect impacts to historic resources. As such, potential Project impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. Archaeological Resources The records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the proposed Project site and identified only six sites in the area, of which only one is considered eligible for (but is not listed on) the NRHP. The field survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the proposed Project site with the exception of a small site identified as CA-KER-7285. As noted, implementation of a testing program at CA-KER-7285 was completed to determine whether the site qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. The significance of a site is judged by the availability, or potential availability, of information bearing on important archaeological research questions. CA-KER-7285 is not associated with a specific event or individual and is not considered historically significant under either Criterion A or B (as defined above). Further, it does not contain any of the distinctive qualities necessary to be considered significant under Criterion C. The site assemblage consists of a small amount of flaked stone debitage and faunal remains. No temporally defining or datable artifacts were recovered and no temporally discrete components were observed. The recovered obsidian sample is minimal, precluding an analysis of the results of obsidian City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 hydration and x-ray fluorescence testing. One faunal sample was submitted for radiocarbon dating but because it cannot be unequivocally associated with a prehistoric component, its use as a temporal indicator is tentative at best. Therefore, without further chronological control, it is not possible to place the site into a larger regional chronological context. The small sample size disallows a substantive statistical analysis of the collection and the assemblage does not exhibit any variability in composition. The site does not contribute to the definition of distinct prehistoric components, nor does it clarify discussions of hunter-gatherer land use, settlement patterns, or site function, and is, thus, not significant under Criterion D. There is no evidence that CA-KER-7285 has been subject to any disturbance other than agricultural plowing which has primarily affected the upper 15-20 centimeters of the site matrix. The landscape and topography appear intact and no discernible disturbances were evident in the unit sidewalls. Thus, although the site maintains integrity in its natural setting and feeling, the site’s lack of cultural material and chronological control preclude evaluation of the site as a historical resource. CA-KER-7285 does not meet California Register eligibility criteria, and is therefore not considered a historical resource under CEQA. Thus, the proposed Project will not affect archaeological resources and no further management of the site is required. Further, due to the low probability of subsurface features, a construction monitor is not recommended for the planned work. Although the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 are proposed to further minimize the potential for impacts to archaeological resources. Human Remains and Unidentified Cultural Resources As noted, the records search did not identify any cultural resources within the proposed Project site and identified only six sites in the area. The field survey did not identify any cultural resources within the proposed Project site with the exception of a small site identified as CA-KER-7285. It is possible that buried or concealed archaeological sites, features, or other cultural properties eligible for listing in the California Register could be present within the proposed Project area and could become exposed during the course of construction or other proposed Project-related activities. Such sites or features might include aboriginal middens or artifact scatters, remnants of aboriginal houses, fire hearths, human burials and cemeteries, and historical dumps and trash deposits. Although encountering these materials is not likely based on the results of the records search and the field survey, disturbance of such features is possible and on the basis that a possibility exists, it is conservatively considered a significant impact. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2, potential Project impacts with respect to archaeological or human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Paleontological Resources The proposed Project is located in an area that does not contain rock outcrops or geologic formations likely to harbor significant fossil deposits. As noted, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section indicated that they do not have “any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the project boundaries, nor do we have any fossil vertebrate localities anywhere nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur at the surface in the proposed project area”. Thus, the area is considered to be of low to zero sensitivity, and potential Project impacts with respect to paleontology resources are concluded to be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Each related project would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES J-1. During excavation and grading activities, if archaeological resources are discovered on site, the Project Developer/Contractor shall stop all work and shall retain a qualified archaeologists to evaluate the significance of the finding and appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and the treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State codes and regulations of the Native American Heritage Commission. J-2. If human remains are discovered as a result of the proposed Project during development, all activity shall cease immediately, the Project Developer/Contractor shall notify the Kern County Coroner's Office immediately under state law, and a qualified archeologist and Native American monitor shall be contacted. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Potential Project impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.J. Cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.J-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K. AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section examines the degree to which the proposed Project may result in significant adverse changes to air quality. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities such as site grading and haul truck trips, as well as long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed Project are discussed in this section. The air quality analysis follows guidelines provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) in its Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site is located in the City of Bakersfield, which lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is made up of the following eight counties in California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the valley portion of Kern. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Meteorology/Climate Setting The SVJAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The valley floor is characterized by hot summers and mild humid winters. Summer high temperatures often exceed 100°F while the average daily low temperature in the winter is 45°F. Temperatures below freezing are rare. Summer winds in the SJVAB usually originate at the north end of the San Joaquin Valley and flow in a south-southeasterly direction while winter winds originate from the south and flow in a north-northwesterly direction. Winds in the winter months tend to be variable and light; often less than 10 mph. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley is strongly influenced by the position of the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure zone located off the Pacific Coast. Most precipitation occurs in the winter months, with some occurring in late summer and fall. Average annual rainfall for the entire San Joaquin Valley is 9.25 inches on the valley floor; however Bakersfield typically receives less than 6 inches per year. The high temperatures of the SJVAB often lead to increased ozone formation, thereby causing increased concentrations of ozone. However, extremely hot temperatures can “lift” or “break” the inversion layer, thereby allowing ozone to be dispersed into the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area1 as well as portions of the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin2. When this occurs, ozone levels peak in the early afternoon and 1 Southwest Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area encompasses portions of the Mojave Desert Air Basin and the South Coast Air Basin. http://www.arb.ca.gov /planning/sip/sedsip04/sedsip04.htm. 2 The Great Basin Valleys Air Basin is comprised of Alpine County, Mono County and Inyo County. http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/basin/basin.swf City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are transported to the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area. Temperature is not as important to the formation of high carbon monoxide (CO) or respirable particulate matter (PM10) levels. Wind speed and direction play an important role in the dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing vertically and by transporting it to other locations. Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high CO and PM10 concentrations. Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is slightly water-soluble so precipitation and fog tend to “reduce” CO concentrations in the air. PM10 is somewhat washed from the atmosphere with precipitation. Low levels of precipitation in the SJVAB, and in Bakersfield in particular, lead to increased pollutant concentrations. However, this is partially offset by heavy fogs in the SJVAB which are formed as a result of the strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions. While these fogs can act to reduce CO and NOx levels, they also assist in the formation of secondary particulates such as ammonium sulfates which are believed to be a notable contributor of winter season violations of the PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Air Quality Background The air quality within the SJVAB is influenced by a range of emissions sources, such as agricultural operations, industrial facilities, vehicles and consumer products. Furthermore, the SJVAB has a naturally low capacity for pollution, due to its unique geography, topography, and meteorology. In particular, its stagnant weather patterns, temperature inversions, and bowl shaped topography limit the dispersion of air pollutants. Air pollutant emissions within the SJVAB are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, race cars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be be generated by the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. Both the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health and welfare. These pollutants are referred to as “criteria air pollutants” as a result of the specific standards, or criteria that have been adopted for them. The national and State standards have been set at levels considered safe to protect public health, including the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly with a margin of safety; and to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The national and State criteria pollutants and the applicable standards are listed in Table IV.K-1. Table IV.K-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Air Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard Federal Standard Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm --8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm --Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 1 Hour 0.25 ppm --24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm PM10 24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Annual 20 μg/m3 --PM2.5 24 Hour --35 μg/m3 Annual 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Note: The lead standard is not listed because of the phase-out of leaded gasoline. Atmospheric lead remains a toxic air contaminant, but unless there is reason to suspect that a proposed project would be a source of lead emissions, the SJVAPCD does not recommend a lead analysis. Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf, November 17, 2008. The criteria air pollutants which are most relevant to current air quality planning and regulation in the SJVAB include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of concern in the SJVAB. Each of these is briefly described below. • Ozone is a gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)— both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable. Ozone is a powerful oxidant that can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone may induce symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthma symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering the cells more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. The highest risks from ozone exposure are associated with active outdoor activities by children, athletes, and outdoor workers during smoggy periods. Exposure City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standards may lead to lung inflammation, lung damage, and a reduction in the amount of air inhaled during breathing. Children appear to be at greater risk since they spend more time outdoors and have lower body mass. Additionally, the elderly and those with respiratory disease are also considered sensitive populations for ozone. Ozone can also damage natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities, and damages agricultural crops and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastics. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines—unlike ozone. Because motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SJVAB, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. At very high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to very elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and death. • Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) consists of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns, respectively, or smaller in diameter. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Exposure to PM10 and PM2.5 may lead to health problems. The human body naturally prevents the entry of larger particles into the body. However, PM10 and even smaller PM2.5 can become trapped in the nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract. PM10 may accumulate in the lungs and irritate the respiratory tract, and may also lead to eye irritation, but fine particles (PM2.5) are more likely than larger PM10 particles to contribute to health effects. Elevated levels of PM10 and PM2.5.5 can potentially aggravate existing heart and lung diseases, change the body's defenses against inhaled materials, and damage lung tissue. The elderly, children, and those with chronic lung or heart disease are most sensitive. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have recognized adverse health effects that may be associated with exposure to PM10 and PM2.5, including: increased respiratory symptoms, such as the irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; decreased lung function, particularly in children; aggravated asthma; and increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations.3 3 See, e.g., USEPA, Health and the Environment, accessed at the USEPA website: www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html (as of July 30, 2008); USEPA, Particle Pollution and Your Health, accessed at the USEPA website: www.epa.gov/airnow/particles-bw.pdf (as of July 30, 2008); CARB, Health Effects of Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Pollution, January 2004. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), which reacts quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 absorbs blue light and the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10. Nitrogen oxides may irritate the nose and throat, and increase one’s susceptibility to respiratory infections, especially in people with asthma. The principal concern of NOx is as a precursor to the formation of ozone. • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. Emissions of sulfur dioxide may aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It also may constrict the breathing passages, especially in asthmatics and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. Sulfur dioxide potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. High levels of particulates appear to worsen the effect of sulfur dioxide, and long-term exposures to both pollutants leads to higher rates of respiratory illness. • Lead occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline used to be the primary source of airborne lead in the SJVAB, although the use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road motor vehicles. Today the primary sources of airborne lead pollution include the manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and secondary lead smelters. Lead may affect the brain and other parts of the body's nervous system. Exposure to lead in very young children may impair the development of the nervous system, kidneys, and blood forming forming processes in the body. • Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of “non-criteria” air pollutants that can affect human health, but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. This is not because they are fundamentally different from the pollutants discussed above, but because their effects tend to be local rather than regional. There are hundreds of toxic air contaminants and exposure to these pollutants can cause or contribute to cancer, birth defects, genetic damage, and other adverse health effects. Diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is emitted in the exhaust from diesel engines, was listed by the State as a TAC in 1998. DPM has historically been used as a surrogate measure of exposure for all diesel exhaust emissions. DPM consists of fine particles (fine particles have a diameter <2.5 μm), including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (ultrafine particles have a diameter <0.1 μm). Collectively, these particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for absorbing organics. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust include carbon particles or “soot.” Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM may be a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. DPM levels and resultant potential health effects may be higher in close proximity to heavily traveled roadways with substantial truck traffic or near industrial facilities. • Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases, including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ROGs. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects. High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons are considered TACs. • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are believed to affect global climate conditions. Simply put, the greenhouse effect compares the Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass panes. The glass panes in a greenhouse let heat from sunlight in and reduce the amount of heat that escapes. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide keep the average surface temperature of the Earth close to a hospitable 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe with an average surface temperature of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. An increase in GHG emissions has been associated with an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere. Climate change poses a threat to the economy, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. If emissions from GHGs are not reduced significantly, the warming increase could have the following consequences in California4: o The Sierra snowpack would decline between 70 and 90 percent, threatening California’s water supply; o Attainment of air quality standards would be impeded by increasing emissions, accelerating chemical processes, and raising inversion temperatures during stagnation episodes; o Erosion of California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion would increase; o Pest infestation and vulnerability to fires in the State’s forests would increase; and o Rising temperatures would increase power demand, especially in the summer season for cooling. In addition to CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and water vapor. Of all the GHGs, CO2 is the most abundant climate change pollutant with fossil fuel combustion CO2 comprising 81.0percent of the total GHG emissions in California in 2002 and non-fossil fuel CO2 comprising 2.3 percent.5 The other GHGs are less abundant, but have higher global warming potential than CO2. To account for this higher 4 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006, p. 11. 5 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006, p. 11. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 potential, emissions of other GHGs are frequently expressed in the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. The CO2e of methane represented 6.4percent of the 2002 California GHG emissions, nitrous oxide 6.8percent, and the other high global warming potential gases represented 3.5percent of these emissions.6 In addition, there are a number of man-made pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), that have indirect effects on terrestrial or solar radiation absorption by influencing the formation or destruction of other climate change emissions. Valley Fever Coccidioidomycosis (CM), often referred to as Valley Fever or San Joaquin Valley Fever, is one of the most studied and oldest known fungal infections. This disease, which is capable of affecting both humans and animals, is caused by inhalation of arthroconidia (spores) of the fungus Coccidioides immitis. Coccidioides immitis spores are found in the top few inches of soil in the hillsides of the San Joaquin Valley. Consequently, projects that include earth-moving activities have the potential to expose people to Coccidioides immitis. CM cannot be spread from person to person. Roughly 60 percent of individuals infected with Coccidioides immitis have no symptoms. For the remaining 40 percent, a wide clinical spectrum of symptoms exists. The most common presentation of CM is a mild, influenza-like illness while the more severe includes pneumonialike symptoms requiring rest and medication. In approximately 1 percent of infected persons, disseminated disease develops. This spreading of Coccidioides immitis infection beyond the lungs can be fatal. Infected individuals who have recovered generally will be resistant to later infection, although reoccurrence as a result of immunosuppression is possible. CM varies with the season. The The highest incidence of this disease usually occurs in late summer and early fall when the soil is dry and the crops are harvested. If there is rain during the peak season of disease transmission, an unusual event in Kern County, the disease incidence has been noted to decline. Outbreaks frequently follow wind and dust storms in Kern County and throughout California’s Central Valley. Between 1991 and 1994, Kern County experienced an epidemic of CM. The epidemic was attributed to a number of factors including: a five year drought preceding the epidemic years, heavy precipitation in the winter and spring months, sustained wind, and a large susceptible population. In 1990, the Kern County incidence rate of reported CM was 50 cases per 100,000. During the peak of the epidemic, the incidence rate rose to 567 per 100,000. From 1995-2000, reported cases of CM dropped, yielding an average annual incidence rate of 63 per 100,000. In 2001-2003, reported cases increased, with an average incidence rate of 156 per 100,000. There is currently no vaccine available to prevent this infection. Since Kern County is one of the fastest growing counties in California, there will continuously be a new group of residents moving into the area that are 6 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006, p. 11. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 susceptible to this infection. It is estimated that a non-immune person living in Kern County has approximately a 1-2 percent chance (per year) of becoming infected with CM. The existence of the fungus in most soil areas is temporary. There is no effective way to detect and monitor CM growth patterns in the soil. Thus, controlling the growth of the fungus in the environment to reduce the risk to individuals is currently not a viable option. Though severe CM is uncommon, and symptomatic infection often resolves without therapy, many patients are ill for weeks to months. Regulatory Setting Air quality within the SJVAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education and and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for regulating and improving the air quality within the SJVAB are discussed below. Federal The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as shown in Table IV.K-1. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for setting and enforcing the federal ambient air quality standards for atmospheric pollutants. As part of its enforcement responsibilities under the CAA, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. State The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. In August, 2006, the California Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This bill requires the ARB to adopt regulations to require require the reporting and verification of statewide City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. As part of this effort, the ARB will adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990, to be achieved by 2020. California needs to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 28.4 percent below “business-as-usual” predictions for year 2020 GHG emissions to achieve this goal. ARB defines “business-as-usual” as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.”7 The ARB will adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions. These are expected to include market-based compliance mechanisms. The statute would further require the ARB to monitor compliance with and enforce any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emissions reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism that it adopts. The following timeline for implementation of AB 32 was published by the ARB (September 25, 2006): By July 1, 2007 ARB forms Environmental Justice and Economic and Technology Advancement advisory committees. By July 1, 2007 ARB adopts list of discrete early action measures that can be adopted and implemented before January 1, 2010. By January 1, 2008 ARB adopts regulations for mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting. ARB defines 1990 baseline for California (including emissions from imported power) and adopts that as the 2020 statewide cap. By January 1, 2009 ARB adopts a plan indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant sources of greenhouse gases via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions. During 2009 ARB staff drafts rule language to implement its plan and holds a series of public workshops on each measure (including market mechanisms). By January 1, 2010 Early action measures take effect. During 2010 ARB conducts series of rulemakings, after workshops and public hearings, to adopt greenhouse gas regulations including rules governing market mechanisms. By January 1, 2011 ARB completes major rulemakings for reducing greenhouse gases including market mechanisms. ARB may revise the rules and adopt new ones after 1/1/2011 in furtherance of the 2020 cap. By January 1, 2012 Greenhouse gas rules and market mechanisms adopted by ARB take effect and are legally enforceable. December 31, 2020 Deadline for achieving 2020 greenhouse gas emissions cap. 7 ARB Scoping Plan, pg. F-3. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 In October 2006, the Governor issued an Executive Order in which he designated the Cal/EPA Secretary with the primary responsibility for implementing AB 32. In late December, the Governor announced the members of a blue-ribbon Market Advisory Committee board to devise approaches to develop a market for carbon trading. More developments are likely as the Governor and the Legislature determine who has primary responsibility for implementation and the relationship between regulations and market-based mechanisms. Because the intent of AB 32 is to limit 2020 emissions to the equivalent of 1990, and the present year (2009) is near the midpoint of this timeframe, it is expected that the regulations would affect many existing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and not just new development projects. As required by AB 32, ARB prepared a Scoping Plan to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. The Scoping Plan, approved by the ARB Board December 2008, provides the outline for actions to reduce GHG emissions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan is a description of the specific measures ARB and others must take to meet the objective of AB 32. Key recommendations of the plan include strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving energy efficiency programs; implementation of California's clean cars standards; increases in the amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the state; and, implementation of a lowcarbon fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the state cleaner. In 2002, SB 1078 established the California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017. In 2006, SB 107 advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II. The 20 percent mandate applies directly to investor-owned utilities, in this case PG&E. On September 15, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-21-0911 requiring ARB to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to establish a 33 percent RPS by 2020. Under the Executive Order, the new regulations also would apply directly to investorowned utilities like PG&E. In 2005, PG&E renewable energy comprised approximately 12 percent of the power supply. For 2009, PG&E is at 13 percent and has secured contracts with generators to increase RPSeligible renewable generation to 20 percent by 2010.8 Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (issued on January 18, 2007), calls for a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2020. 9 Regulatory proceedings and implementation of the LCFS have been directed to the ARB. The LCFS has been identified by the ARB as a discrete early action item in the Scoping Plan. ARB expects the LCFS to achieve the minimum 10 percent reduction goal; however, many of the early action items outlined in the Scoping Plan work in tandem 8 http://www.pge.com/renewablesrfo/9 ARB comparison between Pavley AB 1493 and the Federal 2007 CAFÉ standards (source http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ab1493 v cafe study.pdf). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 with one another. To avoid the potential for double-counting emission reductions associated with AB 1493 (Pavley), the Scoping Plan has modified the aggregate reduction expected from the LCFS to 9.1 percent.10 In September 2004 the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. The Board took this action pursuant to Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002 (AB 1493, Pavley) which directed the Board to adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost effective reduction in GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The regulations apply to new passenger vehicles and light duty trucks beginning with the 2009 model year. The emission standards become increasingly more stringent through the 2016 model year.11 California is also committed to further strengthening these standards beginning in 2017 to obtain a 45 percent greenhouse gas reduction from from 2020 model year vehicles. In response to the Executive Order, the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (the “2006 CAT Report”). The 2006 CAT Report identifies a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate changing greenhouse gas emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor’s targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. It is very important to note that AB 32 does not provide any significance thresholds or a methodology for analyzing a project’s impacts regarding the production of GHGs. In addition, neither the ARB nor the District have issued any guidance to counties, cities or other agencies for the implementation of AB 32 through the CEQA process or for the evaluation and/or analysis of GHG emissions in environmental documents. To provide guidance on how GHGs should be addressed in certain CEQA documents, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97, in October 2007, which requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions. OPR prepared these guidelines and transmitted them to the Resources Agency on April 13, 2009. The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR and the Resources Agency are required to periodically review the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria adopted by the ARB pursuant to AB 32. The OPR has established a web-page for the purposes of sharing ideas, but specifically states that the list of environmental documents containing greenhouse gas emissions analysis does not necessarily imply an OPR endorsement. The OPR released a technical advisory on addressing climate change through CEQA Review on June 19, 2008. This guidance document outlines suggested components to CEQA disclosure: quantification of GHG emissions emissions from a project’s construction and operation; determination of significance of the project’s impact to climate change; and if the project is found to be significant, the identification of suitable alternatives and mitigation measures. 10 Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc /scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. 11 The regulations were adopted by the ARB in their final form on August 4, 2005 pursuant to AB1493 (Pavley) signed into law in 2002. The baseline year for all reduction calculations is 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The ARB published the “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook” on April 28, 2005 (the “ARB Handbook”), to serve as a general guide for considering health effects associated with siting sensitive receptors proximate to sources of toxic air contaminants, including petroleum refineries. The ARB Handbook identifies that refineries may be a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants.12 To address potential health risks, the ARB Handbook recommends avoiding the siting sensitive receptors immediately downwind from a refinery.13 The ARB Handbook is only an advisory document and is not binding on any lead agency. Regional The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has jurisdiction over air quality matters in the SJVAB. The District adopts and enforces rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality quality standards and enforce applicable state and federal law. To meet federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, the District has adopted various ozone and PM10 attainment plans. The most recently adopted ozone attainment plan is the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP). Adopted in 2004, this plan sets forth the emissions reductions and timeline for attaining the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standards in the SJVAB by November 15, 2010. Although the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard was revoked in June of 2005, the requirements from the OADP still apply. In regards to PM10, the 2006 PM10 Plan is a continuation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s strategy for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10. To implement air quality plans, the District adopts rules and regulations. The ISR Rule (Rule 9510) and the Administrative ISR Fee Rule (Rule 3180) led to the implementation of the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Program. The purpose of the ISR Program is to reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from new development projects. The ISR applies to development projects that have not yet gained discretionary approval. The existing air quality plans as a whole will promote a net decrease in greenhouse gases. The transportation control measures are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled and will consequently reduce carbon dioxide production from motor vehicles. Other strategies that promote fuel efficiency and pollution prevention will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Measures that stimulate the development and use of new technologies such as fuel cells will also be beneficial. In general, strategies that conserve energy and promote clean technologies usually also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The District has established the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The GAMAQI is a guidance document designed to assist lead agencies in addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. 12 ARB Handbook, p. 22. 13 Id., p. 23. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The District has prepared draft GHG guidance, Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, and held a public hearing on November 5, 2009 at which time it considered adoption of guidance for land-use agencies within the District to consider when evaluating GHG emissions impacts for new projects under CEQA. The District’s proposed guidance requires all new projects with increased GHG emissions to implement performance based standards, or otherwise demonstrate that project-specific GHG emissions have been mitigated by at least 29 percent, as compared to BAU. The District proposes to create a list of approved Best Performance Standards to help in the determination as to whether a proposed project has reduced its GHG emissions by 29 percent. For additional information and background on air quality and climate change, and on the associated regulatory setting, please refer to the District’s September 17, 2009 Final Draft Staff Report – Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act.14 Local Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Bakersfield, are responsible for implementing “air friendly” community planning that promotes pedestrian traffic, commute alternatives, and cleaner transit fleets. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires the mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The City of Bakersfield has developed the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to provide goals, policies and implementation measures designed to reduce the impacts of projects on local and regional air quality. Existing Regional Air Quality Ambient air quality is determined primarily by the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, as well as the size, topography, and meteorological conditions of a geographic area. The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and is shaped like a narrow bowl. Its weather conditions include frequent temperature inversions, long, hot summers, and stagnant, foggy winters, all of which are conducive to the formation and retention of air pollutants. As a result, the bowl-shaped basin collects and holds emissions caused by the activities of the SJVAB’s three million residents and their two million vehicles, as well as vehicles from other areas traveling on Highway 99 and Interstate 5. In addition, pollutants are also transported into the SJVAB from the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley. These characteristics cause the SJVAB to be unusually susceptible to notable air pollution problems. The average daily emissions inventory for 2008, which is the most current data available, for the entire SJVAB and the portion of Kern County that lies inside of the SJVAB are summarized in Table IV.K-2. As shown, exhaust emissions from mobile sources generate the majority of CO and NOx in the SJVAB and Kern County, 14 http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/CCAP_idx.htm. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 stationary (point) sources produce the most SOx, and area-wide sources generate the most airborne particulates (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5). The majority of VOC emissions in the SJVAB come from natural sources while stationary (point) sources are the largest contributor in Kern County. Measurements of ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants are used by the U.S. EPA and the ARB to assess and classify the air quality of each regional air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with national and State standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in “attainment” for that pollutant. If the pollutant concentration meets or exceeds the standard (depending on the specific standard for the individual pollutant), the area is classified as a “nonattainment” area.15 If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.” Table IV.K-2 2008 Estimated Daily Regional Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Tons Per Day VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Stationary (Point) Sources 83.7 41.8 80.0 20.1 25.1 17.5 Area-wide Sources 149.5 268.4 17.9 1.1 250.9 67.7 Mobile Sources 136.1 1,042.1 468.2 1.9 23.7 20.2 Natural (non-anthropogenic) Sources 235.2 347.5 10.6 3.3 35.2 29.8 Total Emissions 604.5 1,699.7 576.7 26.3 334.9 135.2 Kern County-San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Stationary (Point) Sources 41.6 17.0 25.1 4.3 7.2 5.7 Area-wide Sources 19.2 26.4 2.0 0.1 37.1 8.6 Mobile Sources 23.5 194.4 124.4 0.3 5.6 4.8 Natural (non-anthropogenic) Sources 19.0 17.1 0.6 0.2 1.7 1.5 Total Emissions 103.3 254.8 152.0 4.9 51.7 20.6 * ROG values were used as the SJVAPCD defines VOC as “Volatile organic compound (similar in meaning to ROG, reactive organic gas)” in the 2003 PM10 Plan revised 5/19/05. Source: California Air Resources Board, website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Accessed May 15, 2009. 15 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average above the standard is less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. California Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, CO, SO2 (1-and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. Standards for all other pollutants are not to be equaled or exceeded. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • The U.S. EPA and the ARB use different standards for determining whether the SJVAB is in attainment. Currently, the SJVAB is federally classified as serious non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ground-level ozone, serious non-attainment for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and non-attainment for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Under State standards the SJVAB is classified as severe non-attainment for both 1-hour and 8-hour groundlevel ozone standards, and non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. The U.S. EPA has proposed to grant the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s request for reclassification of the region from “severe” to “extreme” nonattainment for the ozone 8-hour ozone standard. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for all other criteria pollutants relative to both federal and State standards. Existing State-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions The California Energy Commission published the Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 in December 2006. This report indicates that California is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the United States next to Texas. This is largely a result of the number of people living in a large state, as opposed to a small state such as Rhode Island. California generates about half as much CO2 emissions as Texas. When considering fossil fuel emissions at the individual person level, California is second lowest in the nation in per capita CO2 emissions with only the District of Columbia lower. Between 1990 and 2000, California’s population grew by 4.1 million people and during the 1990 to 2003 period, California’s gross state product grew by 83 percent (in dollars, not adjusted for inflation). However, California’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by only 12 percent between 1990 and 2003. The report concludes that California’s ability to slow the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to the success of its energy efficiency, renewable energy programs, and commitment to clean air and clean energy. In fact, the State’s programs and commitments lowered its greenhouse gas emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise. Existing Local Air Quality The ARB collects ambient air quality data through a network of air monitoring stations throughout the State. These data are summarized annually and are published in the ARB’s California Air Quality Data Summaries. The Bakersfield monitoring station, located at 5558 California Avenue, is the nearest monitoring station to the Project site. This station currently monitors emission levels of one-hour and eight-hour ozone, eight-hour and NO2, and twenty four-hour PM10 and PM2.5. No CO data was available at this station. Therefore, eight-hour CO emissions data were reported from the Bakersfield monitoring station that is located along the Golden Golden State Highway. Table IV.K-3 identifies the national and State air quality standards for the relevant pollutants along with the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured at the Bakersfield monitoring station through the period of 2006 to 2008. This is the most current data available as of this date. Over the 2006 to 2008 time period, maximum one-hour ozone concentrations ranged from 0.117 ppm in 2007 to 0.127 ppm in 2008. The national one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm was not exceeded over the 2006 to 2008 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 period, whereas the state one-hour ozone standard was exceeded between 4 and 52 times per year, with the greatest number of exceedances occurring in 2006. The maximum measured 8-hour ozone concentrations ranged from 0.106 ppm in 2007 to 0.111 ppm in 2008. The number of days exceeding the 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm declined from 2006 to 2007, but increased from 2007 to 2008. Both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are measured pursuant to different state and national protocols. Measurement data using both protocols is reported below. The national statistics for respirable particulate matter (PM10) showed concentrations ranging from 115.0 ug/m3 in 2007 to 262.3 ug/m3 in 2008. The national PM10 standard was not exceeded from 2006 to 2007, but was exceeded once in 2008. The State statistics for PM10 showed concentrations ranging from 118.0 ug/m3 in 2007 to 263.6 ug/m3 in 2008. The state PM10 standard was exceeded between 22 and 31 times per year, with the greatest number of exceedances occurring in 2008. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) had concentrations ranging from 77.7 ug/m3 in 2006 to 99.3 ug/m3 in 2008 based on the national protocol. The national 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded between 32 and 56 days per year, with the greatest number of exceedances occurring in 2008. Based on State statistics, PM2.5 had concentrations ranging from 81.0 ug/m3 in 2006 to 99.3 ug/m3 in 2008. There is currently no State 24-hour PM2.5 standard in California. Eight-hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations ranged from a low of 1.97 ppm in 2007 to a high of 2.19 ppm in 2006. Due to these relatively low concentration levels, no exceedances of the national or state 8-hour CO standards occurred between 2006 and 2008. Table IV.K-3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Proposed Project Vicinity Emissions Source Year 2006 2007 2008 Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.123 ppm 0.117 ppm 0.127 ppm Days exceeding national 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard 0 a 0 0 a Days exceeding State 0.09 ppm 1-hour standard 52 4 15 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 0.110 ppm 0.106 ppm 0.111 ppm Days exceeding national 0.075 ppm 8-hour standard 79 25 40 Days exceeding State 0.070 ppm 8-hour standard 104 49 60 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) b Maximum national 24-hour concentration measured 153.0 μg/m3 115.0 μg/m3 262.3 μg/m3 Days exceeding national 150 μg/m3 24-hour standard 0 c 0 1 Maximum State 24-hour concentration measured 159.0 μg/m3 118.0 μg/m3 263.6 μg/m3 Days exceeding State 50 μg/m3 24-hour standard 22 24 31 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) d,e Maximum national 24-hour concentration measured 77.7 μg/m3 85.8 μg/m3 99.3 μg/m3 Days exceeding national 35 μg/m3 24-hour standard 32 49 56 Maximum State 24-hour concentration measured 81.0 μg/m3 93.7 μg/m3 99.3 μg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum national and State 8-hour concentration measured 2.19 1.97 2.17 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-3 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Proposed Project Vicinity Emissions Source Year 2006 2007 2008 Days exceeding national (9 ppm) and State 9.0 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.073 ppm 0.072 ppm 0.083 ppm Days exceeding State 0.25 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) 0.017 ppm 0.017 ppm 0.016 ppm Does measured AAM exceed national 0.0534 ppm AAM standard? No No No Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; AAM =annual arithmetic mean. * There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. a Although the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration of 0.127 ppm exceeds the national 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard, the ARB indicated that the national 1-hour standard was not exceeded in 2006 . As such, this appears to be a reporting error by the ARB. b Both national and State statistics are presented in this table. The national and State statistics may differ for the following reasons: (1) State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods; (2) State statistics for 1998 and later are based on local conditions (except for sites in the South Coast Air Basin, where State statistics for 2002 and later are based on local conditions), whereas national statistics are based on standard conditions; and (3) State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. c Although the maximum national 24-hour PM10 concentration of 153.0 μg/m3 exceeds the national 150 μg/m3 24-hour standard, the ARB indicated that the national 24-hour standard was not exceeded in 2006. As such, this appears to be a reporting error by the ARB. d Both national and State statistics are presented in this table. The national and State statistics may differ for the following reasons: (1) State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods; (2) State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. e There is no State 24-hour PM2.5 standard in California. Source: California Air Resource Board; data taken from the Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue monitoring site. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) had measured 1-hour concentrations ranging from 0.072 ppm in 2007 to 0.083 ppm in 2008, with no reported exceedances of the state standard. The data indicates that there has been a steady decrease in the measured annual concentrations for NO2 from 2006 through 2008, and no exceedances of the annual arithmetic mean national standard were reported. Existing Project Site Emissions The majority of the Project site, approximately 200 acres of the 255-acre Project site, is currently vacant. Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc. (“Pan”) owns and operates a trucking company within an approximately six acre portion of the Project site located to the east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway. Pan’s operations include an approximately 1,400-square-foot office building, truck repair and maintenance facility and parking area for its trucks. Currently it operates 37 trucks that haul petroleum products in 11 western states. Additionally, there are three sub haulers that haul petroleum products for Pan that operate their trucks out of the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Pan facility. There is also an approximately 6,200-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces located in the northeast corner of the Project site. The building is currently leased to ConocoPhillips. The forecast of existing criteria pollutant emissions from these existing on-site uses is shown in Table IV.K-4. As shown therein, criteria pollutant emissions generated by the existing on-site uses are very limited, ranging from 0.01 pounds per day of SOx to 13.90 pounds per day of CO. In addition, it is worthwhile to note that the prior agricultural operations at the Project site were also a source of PM10 emissions. Table IV.K-4 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions – Existing Project Site Land Uses – 2007 Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Water and Space Heating 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Maintenance Equipment 0.13 0.02 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Motor Vehicles 1.04 2.46 12.19 0.01 0.66 0.19 Total Emissions 1.22 2.61 13.90 0.01 0.66 0.19 Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix N. Existing Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants A large number of air pollutants have been classified by the state as TACs. Of note with regard to the existing on-site uses is that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has included diesel particulates on the list of TACs.16 The regulatory agencies have determined that facilities involved with notable levels of heavy duty truck activity are also potential notable sources of diesel particulate emissions. The existing on-site trucking facility located east of Coffee Road generates diesel particulate emissions. The other on-site uses are not of concern with regard to TACs as the existing office building located east of Coffee Road Road is not a notable source of TACs and the existing fuel storage tanks located east of Coffee Road are no longer in use. Based on the conservative assumption that 100percent of the PM10 emissions from heavy duty truck operations at the on-site trucking facility are from diesel sources, the annual diesel particulate emissions from this on-site facility would be approximately 0.1 tons per year. This very low level of diesel particulate emissions at the Project site reflects the limited activities currently occurring at the Project site. 16 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, August 2003 Appendix A-1, p. 11. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Existing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases As discussed previously, the existing uses at the Project site include a trucking facility and office building operated by Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc. The total greenhouse gas emissions generated by the operation of these existing on-site uses (e.g., transportation, electricity, natural gas, solid waste, waste water generation, water usage and conveyance) is 215 tons of CO2e per year.17 Of the various greenhouse gases described earlier in this document, CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas that is emitted by the existing on-site uses. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The air quality analysis presented in this Draft EIR focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the proposed Project. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result from Project operations and from Project-related traffic volumes. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions at the Project site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in Project site emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources (i.e., Project emissions minus emissions from existing on-site activities) have been quantitatively estimated and compared to the thresholds of significance recommended by the District (see below). The methodology used to analyze the Project’s air quality impacts are described below under separate subheadings. Construction Emissions The regional construction emissions associated with the proposed Project are calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 computer model developed for the ARB by estimating the types and number of pieces of equipment that would be used to demolish existing structures, grade and excavate the Project site, and construct the proposed development. These construction emissions are analyzed according to the regional thresholds established by the District in their GAMAQI. It is assumed that all of the construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. To determine whether or not construction activities associated with the proposed Project would create significant adverse localized CO air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors located off-site, the Project’s construction emissions are also analyzed by performing air pollution dispersion modeling to determine the localized CO concentrations at nearby off-site sensitive receptors. The air quality dispersion modeling is done by defining the construction area footprint for the proposed Project and setting up a series of sources across the Project site such that an appropriate distribution of construction-related emissions (i.e., combustion and fugitive 17 A description of the procedures for calculating CO2e emissions from each of the emission sources is provided below in methodology. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 dust emissions) across the Project site are generated. The construction emissions modeled for CO are those representing the worst-case day emissions based on the mass emissions calculations for each pollutant. Operational Emissions Regional operational emissions associated with the proposed Project are estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 computer model developed for the ARB and the information provided in the traffic study prepared for the proposed Project. Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the Project site associated with the operation of the proposed Project. URBEMIS 2007 accounts for anticipated motor vehicle emission reductions over time from advanced technology. Area source emissions are generated by natural gas consumption for space and water heating for the proposed uses, and landscape maintenance equipment servicing the Project site. To determine if an air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions is compared with the District’s recommended thresholds. In addition, the GAMAQI requires localized pollutant concentrations of CO to be determined at intersections that would experience a level of service (LOS) change to levels E or F or substantially worsen congestion at an intersection, defined as an increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.02 or more. As such, localized pollutant concentrations of CO were calculated using the CALINE4 model at intersections in the Project vicinity that met this criterion. The resulting emissions are compared with adopted national and State ambient air quality standards. Hazardous Air Pollutants The proposed Project is a large mixed use development that includes a notable retail component that would require the delivery of goods using medium and heavy duty diesel trucks. As emissions of diesel particulate matter from diesel engines are considered to be hazardous air pollutants, a screening analysis was performed on the estimated truck traffic at the Project site to determine the impacts associated with hazardous air pollutants on nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses) in accordance with the methodology recommended by the District. This portion of the air quality analysis also addresses the extent to which off-site sources of hazardous air pollutants have the potential to impact on-site occupants. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The emissions generated by the proposed Project, and indeed any project, are too small to influence global climate change on their own. Even if an individual project’s GHG emissions were large enough to influence global climate change, the significance of the impact of a single project on global climate cannot be determined at this time. First, no guidance exists to indicate what level of GHG emissions would be considered substantial enough to result in a significant adverse impact on global climate. Second, global climate change models are not sensitive enough to be able to predict the effect of a single project on global temperatures and the resultant effect on climate; therefore, they cannot be used to evaluate the significance of a project’s impact. Thus, insufficient information and predictive tools exist to assess whether a single project would result in a significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 impact on global climate. As discussed previously, there are currently no adopted thresholds or guidance adopted by the District or other agencies in California to assess the significance of potential impacts associated with greenhouse gases. Although SB 97 requires the OPR to prepare CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions by July 1, 2009, which did occur, these guidelines will not be certified or adopted until January 1, 2010. In the absence of established thresholds, however, a quantitative analysis containing an inventory of a project‘s GHG emissions and a qualitative analysis assessing a project’s compliance with adopted programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions have been suggested as a method to evaluate a project’s potential effect on climate change.18 The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) prepared the General Reporting Protocol (Protocol) for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from a number of general and industry-specific activities.19 No specific protocols are available for land use projects, so the CCAR Protocol was adapted to address GHG emissions from the proposed Project. The information provided in this section is consistent the CCAR Protocol’s minimum reporting requirements. The CCAR Protocol recommends the separation of GHG emissions into three categories that reflect different aspects of ownership or control over emissions. They include: • Scope 1: Direct, on-site combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas, propane, gasoline, and diesel); • Scope 2: Indirect, off-site emissions associated with purchased electricity or purchased steam; and • Scope 3: Indirect emissions associated with other emissions sources, such as third-party vehicles and embodied energy.20 The CCAR Protocol provides a range of basic calculations methods. However, CCAR Protocol calculations are typically designed for existing buildings or facilities. These calculation methods are not directly applicable to planning and development situations where buildings do not yet exist. ARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions as part of AB 32 reporting requirements. Additionally, the OPR has noted that lead agencies “should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate…GHG emissions from a project, including the 18 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June 29, 2007. 19 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1, January 2009 (http://www.climateregistry.org/resource s/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf). 20 Embodied energy refers to the quantity of energy required to manufacture and supply to the point of use a product, material, or service. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities.”21 Therefore, direct and indirect emissions have been calculated for the proposed Project using the CCAR Protocol. Not all greenhouse gases exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, greenhouse gas contributions are commonly quantified in carbon dioxide equivalencies (CO2e). The GHG mass emissions for the proposed Project are calculated by converting pollutant specific emissions to CO2e emissions by applying the applicable global warming potential (GWP) value. These GWP ratios are published in the CCAP Protocol. By applying the GWP ratios, the proposed Project-related CO2e emissions are converted to metric tons per year. Sources of GHG Emissions Construction Consistent with guidance from the District for calculating criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities, only GHG emissions from on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker commuting were considered. This approach is supported by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which has concluded that the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from the manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level.22 Furthermore, it is reasonable and consistent with criteria pollutant calculations to consider only the GHG emissions resulting from incremental increase in usage of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, and natural gas upon implementation of the Project. Construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model which is recommended by the District for use of calculating emissions from land use development projects and is based on OFFROAD2007 model outputs. OFFROAD2007 is an emissions estimation model developed by ARB to calculate emissions from construction activities. The output values used in this analysis were adjusted to be project-specific, based on usage rates, type of fuel, and construction schedule. These values were then applied to the construction phasing assumptions used in the criteria pollutant analysis to generate GHG emissions values for each construction year (refer to Appendix N). URBEMIS2007 only reports CO2 emissions. Therefore, the CO2 emissions were used to calculate CH4 and N2O emissions and then converted into metric tons of CO2e by applying the proper global warming potential (GWP) value. These GWP ratios are available from the USEPA and published in the CCAR Protocol. In accordance with District guidance, GHG emissions from construction were amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emissions estimate comparable to operational emissions). 21 Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory, p. 5. 22 CAPCOA, CEQA & Climate Change, January 2008 (http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The embodied energy associated with water use for fugitive dust control were then calculated based on the average active area disturbed per day provided in the URBEMIS 2007 model outputs. The annual water usage was calculated based on a water application rate of 1,703 gallons per acre per day, which is equivalent to watering the active construction area twice daily.23 Operation Consistent with OPR and CAPCOA guidance, GHG emissions resulting from the Project’s incremental increase in the usage of on-road motor vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, and solid waste were considered. Transportation Mobile source emission calculations associated with operation of the proposed Project utilize a projection of annual VMT, which is derived from the traffic study prepared for the proposed Project. These values account for the daily and seasonal variations in trip frequency and length associated with residents and employees and patrons of retail, office and resident uses traveling to and from work and other activities that require a commute. Net emission values were calculated based on the incremental increases from the existing conditions to the proposed Project buildout conditions. CH4 and N2O are also emitted from mobile sources. The USEPA recommends assuming that CH4 and N2O account for five percent of mobile source GHG emissions, taking into account their global warming potential.24 These emission factors were then applied to the annual VMT calculated using URBEMIS. It should be noted that GHG reduction factors from Alternative Compliance Strategies, contained in AB 1493, were not applied in the EMFAC2007 software because a waiver request to implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles was not granted until June 30, 2009. Therefore, such emissions are likely overstated as emission factors for fleet mixes containing post 2009 vehicles would not emulate reductions that would otherwise go into effect as a result of AB 1493. Electricity and Natural Gas The consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity and to provide heating and hot water creates GHG emissions. Future fuel consumption rates were estimated based on specific square footage of the proposed commercial uses and the number of dwelling units. CO2 energy and natural gas use intensity values (i.e., CO2 emissions per thousand square feet per year) for nonresidential buildings were developed based on the California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS).25 The data 23 Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual (1992 Edition). 24 USEPA, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005. 25 Itron, CEC, 2006 (http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 was compiled for climate conditions within the vicinity of the project site (Climate Zone 3). Electricity and natural gas usage was adjusted to account for implementation of the 2005 standards since the CEUS data was collected prior to implementation of the standards. According to the California Energy Commission, implementation of the 2005 standards reduces electricity usage by 7.7 percent and 3.2 percent for natural gas.26 CO2 energy and natural gas usage factors (i.e., CO2 emissions per dwelling unit per year) for residential buildings were developed using the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2003 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) database.27 Energy and natural gas use estimates were based on climate conditions within the vicinity of the Project site (CEC Forecasting Climate Zone 3). Where climate zone or housing type specific data were not available, statewide or housing type averages were used. An electricity scaling factor was developed for single family residential to account for new homes, in which new homes are defined as 1996 or newer. RASS data shows that older homes within Zone 3 use an average of 7,721 kilowatts (kWh) while newer homes use 8,602 kWh per year. Much of this increased energy usage is due to the increased size of newer homes (e.g., lighting, heating and cooling requirements). No adjustment was made for multifamily dwelling units as RASS data shows that newer multifamily dwelling units use slightly less energy than older units. For natural gas, RASS data shows that older residential units within Zone 3 use an average of 436 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of natural gas while newer residential units use 427 MMBtu of natural gas per year. Therefore, a natural gas scaling factor was applied to account for new residential uses. The electricity and natural gas usage was adjusted to account for implementation of the 2005 Title 24 standards since RASS data was collected prior to implementation of the standards. Calculation of CO2e emissions from electricity and natural gas were based on emission factors provided by PG&E and the CCAR Protocol (Version 3.1).28 Water The conveyance and treatment of water is a notable source of electricity consumption in California. GHG emissions associated with water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment were calculated. Water usage rates were calculated based on the City of Bakersfield’s Domestic Water Division’s Southwest Bakersfield Water Supply Study (2007) and the Draft EIR’s Water Supply Assessment (Quad Knopf, 2009). The water use intensity factor (kWh per gallon of water) was selected based 26 California Energy Commission, Impact Analysis—2005 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, June 2003 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/archive/rulemaking/documents/2003-07-11_400-03-03-014.pdf) 27 KEMA-XENERGY, Itron, RASS, Volume 2, Study Results, Final Report, June 2004 (http://websafe.kemainc.com/RASSWEB/DesktopDefault.aspx 28 California Climate Action Registry Database: Pacific Gas & Electric 2007 PUP Report, 2008 (http://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDo cs/PG&E_2007_PUP_Report.pdf) City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 on data from the CEC for an area with a water supply predominately from surface water and ground water wells, similar to the Project area. The water use intensity factor for this type of water supply and conveyance is substantially less than for an area similar to Los Angeles that must pump the water over a mountain via a series of aqueducts. The electricity used to supply water was assumed to reflect the state-wide average for carbon intensity (i.e., pounds of CO2e per kWh of energy produced) as reflected in the CCAR Protocol (version 3.1). Wastewater generation rates for residential uses were developed consistent with data provided in the City of Bakersfield’s Subdivision Design Manual for Sanitary Sewers and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) for non-residential generation rates. Solid Waste Embodied energy is associated with the disposal disposal of solid waste in landfills. Residential and commercial waste generation rates were based on waste generation rates provided by the CIWMB (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/). The operational solid waste streams were converted to GHG emissions based on a emission factor of 0.23 metric tons of CO2e/tones of waste (US EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM)), Version 9.01. Consistency with AB 32 Consistency with AB 32 is measured in terms of meeting specific GHG emission reduction targets as well as implementing applicable GHG reduction measures identified in ARB’s December 2008 Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan). In order to achieve the objectives of AB 32, ARB’s Scoping Plan details GHG emission reductions from each sector in California that is necessary to reach AB 32’s reduction targets (i.e., to reduce GHG emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels). Reflecting this approach, the ARB has determined that reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels means reducing GHG emissions by 28.4percent below “business-as-usual” (BAU) conditions. The ARB defines BAU as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures.”29 The ARB calculates BAU by applying California’s regulatory framework and emissions that existed preceding the enactment of AB 32 (i.e., average of 2002-2004 emissions) and growing those emissions to the year 2020. This approach is also consistent with the draft guidance for conducting GHG analyses issued by the District.30 Based on this approach, the analysis estimates the proposed Project’s BAU GHG emissions without the Project’s sustainability features based on regulatory conditions as of 2006. This level of emissions is compared to those of the Project using an approach that reflects that used in ARB’s Scoping Plan and applying that methodology to account for the anticipated reduction in GHG emissions attributable to certain of the Project’s 29 ARB Scoping Plan, p. F-3. 30 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, November 5, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 sustainability features and certain regulatory measures identified in the Scoping Plan. In addition, the analysis presented below also discusses the means by which the Project’s sustainability features as well as other GHG regulatory measures discussed in the Scoping Plan and related GHG regulatory guidance meet AB 32’s GHG reduction targets. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to air quality if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project’s region is classified as 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; or (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The significance thresholds set forth below are those that are currently recommended by the District in their GAMAQI. These thresholds address the full range of issues expressed in the State CEQA Guidelines thresholds in terms of numerical values or performance standards. As discussed previously in this EIR section, the District utilizes the GAMAQI as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. As such, the District has established the following thresholds for determination of the significance of a project’s construction and operational air emissions. • Ozone Precursor Emissions o Project generates Regional Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions that are greater than 10 tons/year; or o Project generates Regional Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions that are greater than 10 tons/year. • Particulate Matter Emissions o Project generates Regional PM10 emissions that are greater than 15 tons/year; or o Project fails to comply with District Regulations and Rules (e.g., Regulation VIII; and Rules 3135, 4002, 4102, 4103, 4601, 4641, 4901, 4902, and 9510). Compliance with this Regulation and Rules are addressed in the context of the Project’s consistency with the District’s PM10 Maintenance Plan. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • CO Emissions Project causes or contributes to an exceedance of state or federal one-hour or eight-hour ambient CO standards. • Odor Impacts Project is the type of facility that either generates more than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period, or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a threeyear period; or is a use that is developed in proximity to an off-site source that generates odor complaints as set forth above. In addition to the above thresholds that apply to both Project construction and operations, the District has established the following additional threshold that applies to Project operations only: • Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions Project causes an increase in the cancer risk for a person subjected to maximum exposure conditions by more than 10 in one million or a non-cancer Hazard Index of greater than 1. There are no thresholds of significance for Valley Fever that has been adopted by the state or by the City. However, the likelihood of its occurrence can be determined based on the proposed Project’s location and the presence of the types of sediments that are known to contain valley fever spores. Consistency with Air Quality Plans and Policies Reflecting the importance of air quality issues within the SJVAB, several plans and policies are administered by the District, whereas at the City level, air quality policies are also set forth in the City’s General Plan Conservation Element. In addition to the significance thresholds identified above, a significant air quality impact would also occur if the Project is not substantially consistent with the applicable air quality plans and policies administered by the District as well as the City. The SJVAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the State and Federal standards for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Pursuant to State and federal regulations, the District has proposed attainment plans for achieving attainment with regard to both ozone and PM10, including the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and the PM10 Maintenance Plan. The District is also subject to a CO Maintenance Plan. Thus, the Project’s consistency analysis addresses all three of these plans. The District, in an effort to bring the SJVAB into attainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, has established a series of rules and regulations. These rules and regulations include the District’s specific requirements to which all Projects are held. In 2006 the SJVAB achieved attainment for PM10, although the SJVAB would not be redesignated as being in attainment until a maintenance plan has been approved by the U.S. EPA. Based on a review of the District’s rules and regulations, the following would apply to the Project: Regulation VIII, Rule City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3135, Rule 4002, Rule 4102, Rule 4601, Rule 4641, Rule 4901, Rule 4902, and Rule 9510. A summary of the applicable Regulation and Rules is provided below. Rule 9510, Indirect Source Rule, is addressed first, followed by a discussion of Regulation VIII and the other identified Rules. • Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Rule (ISR): The District has established a set of rules intended to control emissions for projects located within the SJVAB. The most important of these, Rule 9510, the “Indirect Source Rule” or ISR, requires any project greater than 50 residential units, 2,000 square feet of commercial space or 39,000 square feet of general office space to file an ISR application with the District. The ISR Rule applies to projects that emit more than two tons of NOx and/or two tons of PM10 after the application of the Project’s emission reduction measures (Rule 9510, Sections 4.3 and 3.20). The ISR rule also requires that when a project is subject to the ISR, developers must reduce their construction emissions by at least 20 percent for nitrogen oxides and 45percent for PM10 in comparison to the statewide average (Rule 9510, Section 6.1.1.1). The ISR rule also requires that operational emissions must be reduced by at least 33percent for nitrogen oxides and 50percent for PM10 over 10 years in comparison to the statewide average (Rule 9510, Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, respectively), starting from 10percent before construction phase completion. The ISR reductions can be achieved through reducing Project emissions through mitigation measures, or the payment of air impact fees, or the combination of both approaches. The payment of fees is an effective means by which to reduce Project emissions as the District uses the air impact fees to obtain off site emissions reductions. • Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibition: Addresses the control of PM10 emissions associated with construction activities, open areas and agricultural sources. • Rule 3135 --Dust Control Plan Fee: Requires an applicant to submit a fee in addition to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover the SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections. • Rule 4002 – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Requires the identification of asbestos containing building materials, and the removal of such materials by a certified contractor. • Rule 4102 – Nuisance: Requires no source or potential source may emit any air contaminant which may create a public nuisance. • Rule 4601 --Architectural Coatings: Limits volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, clean up and labeling requirements. • Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations: Requires that asphalt and paving operations meet the conditions of the rule. • Rule 4901 – Wood Burning Fire Places and Wood Burning Heaters: Requires limits on PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from these sources associated with residential development. • Rule 4902 – Residential Water Heaters: Limits NOx emissions from residential water heaters. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Until the passage of AB 32, CEQA documents generally did not evaluate greenhouse gas emissions or impacts on global climate change. The primary focus of air pollutant analysis in CEQA documents was the emission of criteria pollutants, or those identified in the State and Federal Clean Air Acts as being of most concern to the public and government agencies, and toxic air contaminants. With the passage of AB 32, a more detailed analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is recommended in CEQA documents. However, the analysis of greenhouse gases is different from the analysis of criteria pollutants. Since the half-life of carbon dioxide is approximately 100 years, greenhouse gases affect the global climate over a relatively long timeframe. Conversely, for criteria pollutants, significance thresholds/impacts are based on daily emissions; and the determination of attainment or non-attainment are based on the daily exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards (e.g., one-hour and eight-hour exposures). The OPR, in its June 19, 2008 Technical Advisory, recognizes that CEQA guidelines have not been adopted to provide guidance as to how climate change is to be addressed under CEQA. The OPR also notes that it is continuing to consult with ARB technical staff regarding appropriate thresholds of significance to use for climate change analysis, but that such guidance is not yet available. The OPR has provided the following “informal guidance” regarding the following steps for addressing climate change impacts under the CEQA: (1) Identify and quantify the greenhouse gas emissions; (2) Assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and (3) If significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will reduce impacts below significance.31 On April 13, 2009, OPR transmitted proposed CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the State’s Natural Resources Agency for a formal rulemaking process to certify and adopt these amendments. Notably, the proposed amendments do not establish a threshold of significance. The proposed guidelines also clarify “that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis.”32 For all these reasons, in the absence of regulatory guidance, and before the resolution of various legal challenges related to global climate change analysis and the selection of thresholds, a significance determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the regulations required to meet the goals under AB 32 are still under development, but are expected to be implemented no later than January 1, 2012. Thus, at this time, there are no universally accepted 31 Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory, p. 5. 32 Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of OPR, to Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Natural Resources (April 13, 2009). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 standards by which the approval of a real estate development project can be judged to support or hinder attainment of the State’s goals relating to GHG emissions. Although greenhouse gas emissions can be calculated, no air agency, including the District, or municipality, including the City of Bakersfield, has yet adopted project-level significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions, although the District has issued draft thresholds. Nor have state or local agencies established significance thresholds for the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA. The thresholds of significance set forth in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines are not appropriate for use in the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Appendix G addresses criteria pollutants that are regulated by the attainment plan and other state and federal regulations and standards. Greenhouse gases are not criteria pollutants, and therefore, the thresholds in Appendix G are not applicable. Additionally, due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is speculative to identify the specific impact, if any, to global climate change from one project’s incremental increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. As such, a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. Assessing the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change involves: (1) determining an inventory of project greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) considering project consistency with applicable emission reduction strategies and goals, such as those set forth by AB 32. Thus, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if Project-wide GHG emissions are reduced by less than 29 percent below “business-as-usual” emissions, the break from BAU that has been determined by the ARB as necessary to meet AB 32 goals. Project Design Features Operations The Project as proposed, in addition to adherence to District rules and regulations, includes a series of design features that proactively reduce air and GHG emissions associated with Project construction and operations. These operational and construction design features include the following: • Applicable construction equipment would be equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems. • Project site’s location within ¼ mile of a transit stop. • Utilization of land use designs which create a walkable development thus promoting pedestrian travel. • Utilization of interconnecting sidewalks and paths which encourage travel by walking or biking. • Utilization of roadway design features that enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety thus encouraging travel by means other than by motor vehicle. • Utilization of a landscaping design that would create shade canopies for streets, parkways and parking lots. • Encouraging the use of natural gas for heating in any structures where available through design features which would include natural gas hook ups. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Encourage the use of electrical property management equipment (e.g., landscaping equipment, etc.) through the provision of exterior electrical outlets. • Discourage the installation of fire places and wood stoves. • Implement a Project-specific GHG Management Plan that achieves GHG emissions that are 29 percent below “business-as-usual” levels. Specific measures to achieve this project design feature will be established prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each development phase. The following measures are intended to be illustrative of the type of measures the Project will utilize to achieve at least a 29 percent break from BAU: o Achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Certified” or “Silver” for all Project uses. o Implement energy saving and emission reducing features during the design and construction of each Project component, such as: 􀂃 Exceed Title 24 Standards; 􀂃 Participate in PG&E’s “ClimateSmart” program, whereby participants offset the GHG emissions associated with their electricity and natural gas usage via monthly, tax-deductible donations on their PG&E bill; 􀂃 Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, equipment, and control systems that do not contain CFCs; 􀂃 Install consumption feedback modules to provide real-time and historical feedback to end-users on their energy consumption; 􀂃 Install energy efficient appliances (refrigerators, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, ventilation fans, and ceiling fans)—e.g., Energy Star or equivalent; 􀂃 Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems; 􀂃 Install efficient pumps and motors for pools and spas; 􀂃 Install LEDs for traffic and street lighting; 􀂃 Install light colored ‘cool’ roofs; 􀂃 Provide education on energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste recycling services to Project site tenants and residents; 􀂃 For mechanically or naturally ventilated spaces in a building, meet the minimum requirements of Section 121 of the California Energy Code or the applicable local code, whichever is more stringent; 􀂃 Installation of solar panels; 􀂃 Day-lighting of buildings to reduce lighting needs; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 􀂃 Shading and broad roof overhangs to reduce the demand for building air conditioning; o The Project can achieve energy savings and GHG emissions reduction through a number of indoor and outdoor water conservation measures. Reducing the Project’s potable water use is consistent with the goal of reducing potable water use outlined in the Scoping Plan. Emission reductions could be achieved through utilization of the following measures: 􀂃 Landscaped areas using a complete water-conserving irrigation system (e.g., drip irrigation and automatic systems that use moisture sensors); 􀂃 Plant native vegetation and drought-tolerant plants; 􀂃 Install infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation to the extent reclaimed water is available at the Project site; 􀂃 Install low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment including low-flush toilets and and urinals; 􀂃 Install self-closing valves for faucets and drinking fountains; 􀂃 Install water efficient dishwashers, clothes washers, and any other washing appliances in residential units; 􀂃 Install cooling towers with re-circulating water systems; 􀂃 Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles; and 􀂃 Provide education on water conservation to Project site tenants and residents. o The Project can achieve energy savings and GHG emissions reduction through a reduction of solid waste generation. Reducing the Project’s solid waste generation is consistent with the goal of reducing solid waste and increasing the recycling rate outlined in the Scoping Plan. Emission reductions could be achieved through utilization of the following measures: 􀂃 Exceed regional solid waste recycling rates; and 􀂃 Reduce the overall quantity of solid waste generation (e.g., per capita, per building, etc.). o The Project can reduce transportation-related GHG emissions related to the Project’s physical design through utilization of the following measures: 􀂃 Create a bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment; 􀂃 Promote and support rideshare/carpool/vanpool promotion and support 􀂃 Provide transit passes for employees and residents; 􀂃 Create shaded walkways and shelters created via vegetation, trees, and structures; 􀂃 Use water features to cool and shade outdoor pedestrian ways; 􀂃 Provide education and information on alternative travel modes; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 􀂃 Provide linkages to the City of Bakersfield’s existing park system; 􀂃 Provide transit facilities on-site to promote the extension of bus lines to the Project site; and 􀂃 Coordinate with Golden Empire Transit to add the Project site to existing bus lines. Construction • The proposed Project would also incorporate design features, as shown in Table IV.K-5, that reduce NOx and PM10 emissions during Project construction. • In addition to the Project Design Features identified above, Project construction and operations would occur in accordance with all applicable District Regulations and Rules. Table IV.K-5 Proposed ISR Construction Emissions Reduction Strategies Product Name Technology Type PM Reduction NOx Reduction Applicable Equipment Engine Control System -Combifilter DPF a 85percent n/a 1996-2007 off-road; CARB diesel; biodiesel Extengine DOC + SCR b 25percent 80percent 1991 -1995 Cummins 5.9 liter offroad; CARB diesel a DPF = Diesel Particulate Filter b DOC = Diesel Oxidation Catalyst; SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction. Source: Christopher Joseph & Associates, March 2008. In addition to the project design features described above, the Applicant will be entering into an agreement with the District to implement a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the purpose of acquiring emission offsets to reduce the Project’s regional emissions of criteria pollutants during both Project construction and operations to less than significant levels. The emission reductions that would occur under the VERA would create contemporaneous air quality benefits within the District, with final emission reduction measures to be selected by the District from candidate programs, and other programs deemed by the District as appropriate, which would provide regional air quality benefits. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Impacts Construction In general, the District assumes that the implementation of District rules will bring a project’s construction impacts to a less than significant level. The following methodology section presents the approaches used to conduct the Project’s construction impact analysis. During construction of the proposed Project, three basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions. First, existing on-site structures would be demolished and the surface parking lots would be removed. The demolition phase would include the demolition of two existing on-site office buildings; one building with 6,200 square feet, with the other building consisting of 1,400 square feet. Second, the Project site would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the streets, subsurface infrastructure, and building foundations. Third, the proposed commercial buildings, and residential units would be constructed. In general, each construction activity generates emissions that can be categorized into the following three sources: (1) fugitive dust from earthmoving activities; (2) construction equipment exhaust; and (3) construction worker vehicle exhaust. Generally, fugitive dust from earthmoving activities produces the most PM10 emissions during Project construction, while exhaust emissions from construction equipment produces the most ROG and NOx. Criteria pollutant emissions from worker vehicle exhaust are typically small compared with those from the other two activities. PM10 emissions from fugitive dust tend to be a concern regionally as well as locally, as these emissions have the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors. On the other hand, being precursors to ozone, ROG and NOx emissions tend to be more of a concern regionally. Based on the Project’s construction schedule and planned level of activity, emissions from the construction construction emissions were calculated. The following data and assumptions were used to estimate the Project’s construction emissions. Construction Period Emissions – Mass Daily Emissions The proposed Project involves the development of 1,330,000 square feet of retail space, a 70,000 square foot cinema, 600,000 square feet of commercial/office space, and 425 residential units. The Project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Prior to any grading or construction taking place in the northwest portion of the Project site, the two existing on-site buildings would be demolished. As different amounts of average development would occur in each phase, separate forecasts of construction emissions during each of the Project’s three construction phases is provided. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phase I construction would include 730,000 square feet of retail uses; a 70,000 square-foot cinema; and 200,000 square feet of office uses. Phase I construction is forecasted to be completed over a minimum two-year period. Under a two-year Phase I construction schedule, the greatest construction activity would occur for the nine months starting at the beginning of the second year of construction. Grading in support of Phase II construction is scheduled to begin in January 2024 and last through March 2024. Phase II building construction is scheduled to take place between April 2024 and May 2035. Phase II construction is anticipated to involve the construction of 600,000 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of commercial/office space. Phase III grading is scheduled to start January 2034 and continue through March 2034. The third phase of building construction is scheduled to begin April 2034 and continue through September 2035 with the construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of office space and 425 residential units. Construction activities at the Project site would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) demolition, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from the Project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to and from the Project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; and (5) building construction, including the application of architectural coatings. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Construction activities involving site preparation and grading would primarily generate PM10 emissions. Mobile source emissions (use of diesel-fueled equipment onsite, and traveling to and from the Project site) would primarily generate NOx emissions, while the application of architectural coatings would primarily result in the release of ROG emissions. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time. The forecast of daily construction emissions has been conducted utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 computer model, recommended for this type of analysis by the District. Table IV.K-6, Forecasted Annual Construction Emissions During Project Construction, presents the Project’s expected annual emissions in tons per year. The tons per year presentation is for comparative analysis with the District’s thresholds that are given in terms of tons per year. These calculations assume that the Project complies with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and appropriate dust control measures, as required by the District, would be implemented during each construction phase. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-6 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx COa SOx PM10 PM2.5 Phase I Site Grading/Construction Emissions – Year 1 Project Emissions 7.38 63.61 34.31 0.01 6.27 3.45 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 7.38 13.33 34.31 0.01 3.73 1.12 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a 2.66 n/a n/a 1.68 n/a Additional Emission Reductions Per VERA 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions – Year 1 7.38 9.90 34.31 0.01 2.05 1.12 Construction Emissions – Year 2 Project Emissions 4.53 34.81 22.51 0.01 2.03 1.85 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 4.53 7.58 22.51 0.01 0.36 0.31 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a 1.52 n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – Year 2 4.53 6.06 22.51 0.01 0.36 0.31 District Threshold 10 10 n/a n/n/a 15 15 Significant Impact – Year 1 No Yes n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – Year 2 No No n/a n/a No No Phase II Demolition/Site Grading/Construction Emissions– 2024 Project Emissions 2.80 18.15 18.69 0.00 2.48 1.10 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 2.80 3.11 18.69 0.00 1.80 0.47 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a 0.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions -2024 2.80 2.45 18.69 0.00 1.80 0.47 Construction – 2025 Project Emissions 1.82 11.37 13.35 0.00 0.68 0.61 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 1.82 1.93 13.35 0.00 0.12 0.10 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2025 1.82 1.93 13.35 0.00 0.12 0.10 Construction Emissions – 2034 Project Emissions 0.56 3.48 4.65 0.00 0.20 0.17 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 0.56 0.77 4.65 0.00 0.05 0.04 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2034 0.56 0.77 4.65 0.00 0.05 0.04 Construction – 2035 Project Emissions 0.28 1.74 2.03 0.00 0.12 0.10 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 0.28 0.37 2.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2035 0.28 0.37 2.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 Phase III Site Grading/Construction Emissions– 2034 Project Emissions 1.35 9.09 7.75 0.01 2.03 0.69 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 1.35 1.98 7.75 0.01 1.73 0.42 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2034 1.35 1.98 7.75 0.01 1.73 0.42 Construction – 2035 Project Emissions 0.46 2.87 3.82 0.00 0.20 0.17 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-6 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx COa SOx PM10 PM2.5 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 0.46 0.68 3.82 0.00 0.06 0.04 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2035 0.46 0.68 13.35 0.00 0.06 0.04 Phase II and Phase IIIb Site Grading/Construction Emissions– 2034 Project Emissions 1.91 12.57 12.40 0.00 2.23 0.86 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 1.91 2.75 12.40 0.00 1.78 0.46 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a 0.55 n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions -2034 1.91 2.20 12.40 0.00 1.78 0.46 Construction – 2035 Project Emissions 0.74 4.61 5.85 0.00 0.32 0.27 Emissions After Implementation of SCR and DPF 0.74 1.05 5.85 0.00 0.08 0.06 Required Emission Reductions Per District Rule 9510 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions – 2035 0.74 1.05 5.85 0.00 0.08 0.06 District Threshold 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 Significant Impact – 2024 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – 2025 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – 2034 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – 2035 No No n/a n/a No No a As discussed above, significant CO impacts are evaluated based on one-hour and eight-hour ambient CO standards and not on total emissions. To evaluate potential CO impacts, refined air pollution dispersion modeling was performed. This analysis is presented below. b Phase II and Phase III construction activities overlap during 2034-2035, therefore emissions from Phase II and Phase III were summed during this time frame. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix N. The District’s adopted significance thresholds, as described above, vary by pollutant. For ozone precursors, such as ROG and NOx, the District has established significance thresholds based on the total amount of pollutant emissions generated by the Project on an annual basis, whereas PM10 emissions are evaluated based on total annual emissions. CO emissions are evaluated in terms of localized concentrations. The District has not established PM2.5 thresholds yet, therefore in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance, PM2.5 significance levels are set at the PM10 levels. Due to the removal of sulfur compounds from any fuel used in California, SOx is no longer being monitored; thus SOx monitoring data is not available for the SJVAB from 2004 through 2006 and thus, no significance thresholds have been established for SOx by the District. With regard to ROG and NOx emissions, the District’s significance threshold states that the Project cannot generate more than 10 tons of each pollutant on an annual basis. The air quality model recommended for use by the District calculates volatile organic compounds (VOC) in lieu of ROG. The District defines VOC as similar to ROG. Therefore, ROG is used for these emissions throughout the balance of this analysis. As shown in Table IV.K-6, ROG emissions do not exceed the 10 ton per year threshold during any of the construction phases. During Phase I construction, ROG emissions range from 4.53 to 7.38 tons per year, whereas during Phases II/III construction, ROG emissions range from 0.28 tons per year to 2.80 tons per year. As such, the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project’s ROG emissions during construction would not constitute a significant impact on an annual basis in all years of Project construction. In terms of NOx emissions, the 10-ton per year threshold, as shown in Table IV.K-6, would not be exceeded during Phase I construction. As such, the Project’s NOx emissions during construction would constitute a lsess than significant impact. During Phase I grading and construction, NOx emissions range from 6.06 to 9.90 tons per year, whereas during Phases II/III grading and construction, NOx emissions range from .37 tons per year to 2.45 tons per year. As NOx emissions generated during both years of Phase I construction as well as the 2024 and 2034 time periods exceed the two ton per year threshold established by Rule 9510, Project implementation would occur in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9510, which requires that annual construction NOx emissions be reduced by 20 percent from the statewide average. In terms of PM10 emissions, the 15-ton per year threshold, as shown in Table IV.K-6, would not be exceeded throughout the Project’s construction period (i.e., all three development phases). As such, the Project’s PM10 emissions during construction would constitute a less than significant impact. As specific guidance regarding a PM2.5 threshold has not been adopted by the District, based on the EPA’s guidance, the Project’s PM2.5 threshold would be 15 tons per year. The Project’s PM2.5 emissions during construction would not exceed 15 tons per year in any of the three development phases and therefore would constitute a less than significant impact. Regional PM10 emissions are also evaluated in terms of the various District Regulations and Rules, such as the regulations set forth in District Rule 9510. As annual PM10 emissions generated during the first year of Phase I construction exceeds the two-ton per year threshold established by Rule 9510, project implementation would occur in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9510, which requires that annual construction PM10 emissions be reduced by 45 percent from the statewide average. The GAMAQI does not establish significance thresholds with regard to regional emissions of CO, or SOx during construction. As discussed earlier in this section, CO impacts are evaluated based on one-hour and eight-hour ambient CO standards and not on total emissions. To evaluate potential CO impacts, refined air dispersion modeling was performed. This analysis, which is presented in Table IV.K-6, indicates that localized CO concentrations during Project construction would not exceed any State or federal ambient air quality standard. As such, construction CO impacts are concluded to be less than significant. With regard to SOx emissions, it is important to note that with the advent of unleaded gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuels, SOx emissions have diminished to such an extent to no longer be a pollutant of particular concern. Furthermore, Project construction would result in the maximum release of SOx emissions of approximately 0.01 tons per year. For these reasons, Project impacts with regard to SOx emissions during Project construction would be less than significant. Construction Period Emissions – Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations To evaluate the potential impacts from the CO emissions generated during Project construction, refined air pollution dispersion modeling was performed. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is the residential neighborhood located approximately 25 meters to the west and to the south of the Project site’s western and southwestern boundaries. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The U.S. EPA-approved dispersion model, AERMOD, was used to determine localized pollutant concentrations from Project construction activities. The AERMOD model supersedes the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) as the recommended EPA air pollution dispersion model. The AERMOD model incorporates a number of different factors including the size of development area, meteorological conditions, and the emission rate of the pollutant to determine the pollutant concentrations generated by the Project’s construction activities. The localized pollutant concentrations from construction activities were added to the existing background concentrations as measured at the Bakersfield air quality monitoring station, the monitoring station located closest to the Project site. As indicated in Table IV.K-7, the maximum localized concentrations of CO during Project construction do not exceed the State 1-hour or the state 8-hour ambient air quality standards. Therefore, impacts from construction on localized pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Table IV.K-7 Summary of Dispersion Modeling Results – Construction Emissions Pollutant – Averaging Time CO – 1-Hour CO – 8-Hour Construction -Maximum Concentration 2.23 0.32 Background Concentration 3.3 2.19 Project plus background 5.53 2.51 Significance Threshold 20.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Significant Impact? No No Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Modeling output sheets are provided in Appendix N. Construction Period Emissions – Global Climate Change Emissions of GHGs were calculated for each year of construction of the proposed Project and results are presented in Table IV.K-8, Predicted Proposed Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Also included in Table IV.K-8 is ARB’s estimated 2004 State-wide inventory, the latest year for which data are available. As shown in Table IV.K-8, the annual net increase in GHG emissions from construction activities would represent a maximum of 0.001 percent of the 2004 state-wide level. As recommended by the District, the annual GHG construction emissions were then amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emissions estimate comparable to operational emissions) and incorporated into the operational analysis, provided below. A complete listing of the construction equipment by phase, construction phase duration, and emissions estimation model input assumptions used in this analysis is included within the emissions calculation worksheets that are provided in Appendix N. As described above, this GHG analysis was performed in accordance with District and ARB guidance. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-8 Predicted Proposed Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO2ec (Metric Tons) Phase I Phase II Phase II /Phase III Year 1 Year 2 2024 2025 2034 2035 Proposed Project Total Construction CO2e Emissions a 5,319 3,302 3,563 2,083 2,966 1,140 Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventoryb 0.0011pe rcent 0.0007per cent 0.0007pe rcent 0.0004pe rcent 0.0006pe rcent 0.0002perce nt a Detailed calculation of construction CO2e are provided in Appendix N. b Statewide totals were derived from the CARB Draft California GHG Inventory, November 2007 (479,740,000 metric tons per year). c All CO2e factors were derived using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 3.1, January 2009. Source: Matrix Environmental, 2009. Odors During the Project’s construction phase, activities associated with the operation operation of construction equipment, the application of asphalt, the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes, and roofing may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. However, although these odors could be detectable to adjacent uses, they are temporary and intermittent in nature. In addition, as construction-related emissions dissipate away from the construction area, the odors associated with these emissions would also decrease and would be quickly diluted. This is particularly true since large portions of the Project site are located more than 500 feet away from off-site sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors during Project construction would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-to-day activities on the Project site once construction of individual buildings is completed. Emissions would occur both in a regional and local context. The analysis of the Project’s operational emissions considers emissions of criteria air pollutants (those pollutants for which ambient air quality standards have been established), air toxics and odors. In addition, analysis of the Project’s impacts with regard to greenhouse gases is also provided. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Criteria Pollutants Regional Emissions Project operations would generate regional criteria pollutant emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for cooking and space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. The forecast of daily operational emissions from the proposed Project was generated by utilizing the URBEMIS 2007 computer model recommended by the District. The URBEMIS 2007 air quality model is a land-use based model that generates air emissions based on the type and density of the proposed land uses, and is influenced by other factors such as trip generation rates, proximity to mass transit, local demographics, and the extent of pedestrian friendly amenities. Factors such as the mixed-use nature of the proposed Project, the Project’s location within an urbanized area of the City of Bakersfield, the Project’s proximity to public transit (i.e., public transit is located within a half mile of the Project site at Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road), etc., are relevant factors in evaluating the air emissions that would be generated by the proposed Project. The results of these calculations are presented in Table IV.K-9, Estimated Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Operations. The emission forecast is presented for Opening Day (completion of Phase I in 2015), Interim Project Development (completion of Phase II in 2035), and Project Buildout (completion of Phase III in 2035). The land uses proposed to be developed as part of each development phase, as shown in Table IV.K-9, would generate regional criteria pollutant emissions that do not exceed the District’s established regional emission threshold levels for ROG, NOx, and PM10 whereas the District has not established regional emission threshold levels for CO and SOx. As such, regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10, for each development phase as well as the entire development at buildout, would be less than significant. As discussed earlier in this section, CO impacts are evaluated based on one-hour and eight-hour ambient CO standards and not on total emissions. To evaluate potential CO impacts, refined air dispersion modeling was performed. This analysis, which is presented in Table IV.K-9, indicates that localized CO concentrations during Project operations, at the completion of each phase, would not exceed any State or federal ambient air quality standard. As such, CO impacts during Project operations are concluded to be less than significant. With regard to SOx emissions, it is important to note that with the advent of unleaded gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuels, SOx emissions have diminished to such an extent to no longer be a pollutant of particular concern. Furthermore, Project operations at full buildout would result in the release of SOx emissions of less than one ton per year. For these reasons, Project impacts with regard to SOx emissions during Project operations would be less than significant. Using the EPA’s guidance regarding PM2.5 emissions, Project emissions of PM2.5 at the completion of each phase would be less than 15 tons per year. As such, operational emissions constitute a less than significant impact with regard to PM2.5 emissions. While Project emissions exceed the District’s significance thresholds, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, Project emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 would be reduced to less than significant levels. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-9 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Operations (Includes Required ISR Reductions) a Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Opening Day /Phase I (2015) – Emissions Sources Area Emissions 1.25 1.09 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicles 22.13 23.85 228.92 0.25 10.83 4.99 Total Increase 23.38 24.94 230.72 0.25 10.83 4.99 Existing Land Uses (2015 projection) 0.17 0.29 1.76 0.00 0.11 0.03 Additional Emission Reductions Per VERA 13.31 14.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Net Increase 9.90 9.90 228.96 0.25 10.72 4.96 District Thresholds 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 b Significant Impact? No No No No No No Project Interim Development /Phases I and II (2035) – Emissions Sources Area Emissions 2.19 1.95 3.17 0.00 0.01 0.01 Motor Vehicles 15.09 9.87 138.45 0.36 15.14 6.54 Total Increase 17.28 11.82 141.62 0.36 15.15 6.55 Existing Land Uses (2035 projection) 0.08 0.10 0.79 0.00 0.11 0.02 Additional Emission Reductions Per VERA 7.30 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.06 c Total Net Increase 9.90 9.90 140.83 0.36 14.90 6.47 District Thresholds 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 b Significant Impact? No No No No No No Project Buildout /Phases I, II, and III (2035) – Emissions Sources Area Emissions 6.97 2.55 4.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 Motor Vehicles 17.66 11.55 162.62 0.43 17.81 7.69 Total Increase 24.68 14.11 166.76 0.43 17.82 7.70 Existing Land Uses (2035 projection) 0.08 0.10 0.79 0.00 0.11 0.02 Additional Emission Reductions Per VERA 14.70 4.11 0.00 0.00 2.81 1.21 c Total Net Increase 9.90 9.90 165.97 0.43 14.90 6.47 District Thresholds 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 b Significant Impact? No No No No No No a The ISR Rule requires that operational emissions must be reduced by at least 33percent for NOx and 50percent for PM10 over 10 years in comparison to the statewide average (Rule 9510, Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, respectively), starting from 10percent before construction phase completion. b As the District has not adopted a PM2.5 regional mass emission threshold, this analysis uses the EPA guidance which recommends using the same significance threshold as PM10 (i.e., 15 tons per year). c Reduction in PM2.5 emissions calculated based on the ratio of Project PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix N. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Localized CO Impacts Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” The District considers CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive receptors to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential uses are considered sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are are considered moderately sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory function. The District recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating localized pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway-specific CO emissions calculated from peak-hour motor vehicle volumes to ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, localized CO concentrations were calculated based on a change in the traffic level of service (LOS). According to the GAMAQI, the CO Hotspots analysis needs to be performed on any intersection that has an LOS change to levels E or F or substantially worsen an intersection, defined as an increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.02 or more. The District’s recommended analysis approach starts with a screening (i.e., generalized) analysis using very conservative conditions and provides a very conservative forecast of CO concentrations. If a calculated CO concentration under this screening methodology approaches or exceeds a threshold, a detailed modeling of local conditions is completed using the CALINE4 model, utilizing site specific conditions. For the proposed Project, twelve (12) intersections near the Project site would require a CALINE4 analysis. This analysis includes the projected traffic forecasted to move through this intersection during both AM and PM peak travel periods. The emission factors used in the analysis reflect those generated by the EMFAC2007 model. Table IV.K-10 shows maximum CO concentration levels for locations near the evaluated intersections for Opening Day (2015) and Project Buildout (2035). The national 1-hour ambient air quality standard is 35.0 ppm and the State 1-hour ambient air quality standard is 20.0 ppm. The 8-hour national and state ambient air quality standards are 9 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-10 Projected Maximum CO Concentrations Intersection Opening Day (2015) Project Buildout (2035) 1-Hour (AM) 1-Hour (PM) 8-Hour 1-Hour (AM) 1-Hour (PM) 8-Hour 30. Coffee Rd & Rosedale Hwy 4.5 ppm 4.8 ppm 3.6 ppm 4.6 ppm 5.0 ppm 3.9 ppm 46. Coffee Rd & Brimhall Rd 4.2 ppm 4.5 ppm 3.4 ppm 4.2 ppm 4.5 ppm 3.4 ppm 49. Coffee Rd /Gosford Rd & Stockdale Hwy 4.2 ppm 4.3 ppm 3.4 ppm 4.4 ppm 4.5 ppm 3.4 ppm 56. Mohawk St & Rosedale Hwy 4.4 ppm 4.7 ppm 3.6 ppm 4.1 ppm 4.6 ppm 3.5 ppm 57. Landco Dr & Rosedale Hwy 4.2 ppm 4.8 ppm 3.6 ppm 4.0 ppm 4.2 ppm 3.1 ppm 58. SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Hwy 4.5 ppm 4.6 ppm 3.5 ppm 4.3 ppm 4.1 ppm 3.2 ppm 59. SR 99 NB – Buck Owens Blvd & Rosedale Hwy 4.3 ppm 5.1 ppm 4.0 ppm 4.2 ppm 4.4 ppm 3.4 ppm 60. Oak St & 24th St Rosedale Hwy 4.5 ppm 4.6 ppm 3.6 ppm 4.3 ppm 4.4 ppm 3.3 ppm 83. Oak St & Wible Rd Stockdale Hwy & Brundage Lane 3.9 ppm 4.1 ppm 3.0 ppm 3.7 ppm 3.9 ppm 2.8 ppm 91. Oak St & Truxtun Ave 4.5 ppm 4.5 ppm 3.4 ppm 4.2 ppm 4.2 ppm 3.3 ppm 96. Mohawk St & Truxtun Ave 4.3 ppm 4.9 ppm 4.1 ppm 4.1 ppm 3.8 ppm 3.0 ppm 121. Coffee Rd & Project Driveway 4.3 ppm 4.0 ppm 3.2 ppm 4.3 ppm 4.7 ppm 3.6 ppm Note: National 1-hour standard is 35.0 ppm; State 1-hour standard is 20.0 ppm; National and State 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm. Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, November 2009. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix N. As shown in Table IV.K-10, using very conservative modeling assumptions, projected CO concentrations at the evaluated intersections do not exceed national or State ambient air quality standards. Therefore, Project development would not result in the creation of a CO hotspot at any location or under any development phase. Thus, Project impacts on localized CO concentrations are less than significant. Concurrent Construction and Operational Emissions Impacts Due to the construction phasing associated with the proposed Project, Phase I would be operational in 2015, and construction of Phase 2 would commence in 2024. As such, during the construction of Phase II, which would generate construction-related emissions at the site, operational emissions would also be generated simultaneously at the proposed Project. In order to analyze the total emissions generated by the proposed Project for the worst-case scenario, the estimated construction emissions from Phase II during 2024 were combined with the estimated operational emissions from Phase I during 2024. This timeframe is anticipated to result in the highest emissions based on a comparison of construction emissions for the years the Project is operational. The results of these calculations are presented in Table IV.K-11, Estimated Proposed Project Daily Construction and Operational Emissions. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-45 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-11 Estimated Proposed Project Concurrent Construction and Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions – Phase I a Subtotal Emissions 17.00 15.23 155.72 0.25 10.57 4.70 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – Phase II (2024) b Subtotal Emissions 2.80 2.45 18.69 0.00 1.80 0.47 Total Maximum Daily Emissions – Phase I operations and Phase II construction Total Emissions 19.80 17.68 174.41 0.25 12.37 5.17 Emission Reductions Per VERA 9.90 7.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Net Emissions 9.90 9.90 174.41 0.25 12.37 5.17 District Thresholds 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 c Significant Impact? No No No No No No a The values shown for the operational emissions of each criteria pollutant for Phase I are derived from the values shown in Table IV.K-9 of this document. b The values shown for the construction emissions of each criteria pollutant for Phase II were obtained from Table IV.K-6 of this document. c As the District has not adopted a PM2.5 regional mass emission threshold, this analysis uses the EPA guidance which recommends using the same significance threshold as PM10 (i.e., 15 tons per year). Source: URBEMIS 2007. Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. Computer sheets are provided in Appendix K. As shown in Table IV.K-11, concurrent construction and operational emissions would not exceed annual thresholds for all criteria pollutants for which annual thresholds have been established (i.e., ROG and NOx, PM10 and PM2.5). Thus a potentially significant regional air quality impact would not occur. Hazardous Air Pollutants According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant (TAC) is “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which pose a present or potential hazard to human health”. There are 189 substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants33. TACs do not have quantified air quality standards like criteria pollutants because there is no safe levels of TACs. The GAMAQI recommends that proposed Projects with the potential to expose the public to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be evaluated by using the following criteria: 33 US Code of federal regulations Title 42 section 7412. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-46 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Is the proposed project a new or modified source of hazardous air pollutants? • Will the project site locate sensitive receptors near an existing source of hazardous air pollutants? With regard to the first criterion, the proposed Project is not included in the GAMAQI list of examples of projects requiring air permits which is identified in the guidance as sources that could release HAPs. The proposed Project is a large mixed use development which includes a notable retail component that would require the delivery of goods using medium and heavy duty diesel trucks. The ARB and the District have recognized that certain emissions from diesel engines, specifically, diesel particulate matter (DPM), are potential hazardous air pollutants. Due to the size of the proposed retail component and the potential that these uses could be located in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses), a screening analysis was performed on the estimated truck traffic for the site. The estimate of delivery truck traffic was performed using ITE truck fleet percents based on the total daily trips generated according to land use type. The analysis breaks the truck emissions into two general categories, travel and idle. For the idle component of the analysis the projected length of idling period and number of idling occurrences per day are used to determine the DPM emissions. The calculated DPM emissions are then used with the distance and direction to sensitive receptors to establish the potential risk. For the truck travel portion of the analysis the District recommends breaking truck travel sections down into 50 meter segments. A series of these segments traveling throughout the Project site is then utilized to represent on-site truck travel. It is anticipated delivery trucks would access the Project Site via Coffee Road to enter the retail portion of the property and deliver deliver prospective goods. Based upon the distance between the nearest off-site residential property and the southern boundary of the Project Site, it is anticipated that the delivery trucks would not pass within 90 feet (27.4 meters) of the nearest off-site residential property. This is a conservative and very unlikely scenario as it locates the truck routes for all trucks within the Project site as close to the off-site sensitive receptors as possible. In all likelihood, trucks within the Project site would travel along routes that are at much greater distances from off-site residential uses. As such, the actual impact from this particular emission source would be much better lower that what is shown below. By summing up all the projected risks for each of the above calculations, the potential risk from the Project Site on sensitive receptors at build out was calculated, and presented in Table IV.K-12. The District significance threshold for DPM is a 10 in one million cancer risk and an increase in the non-cancer hazard index of one. The calculated cancer risk for the Project is 7.27 in a million and the non-cancer health index is 0.0011, both of which are well below the District’s thresholds, and as such, the health risk impact is less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-47 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-12 Estimated Health Risks Impact Maximum Impact Cancer Risk Non-Cancer Risk Project Impact 7.27 in a million 0.0011 Significance Threshold 10 in a million 1.0 Significant impact? No No With regard to the second criterion, the only applicable facility in the Project area is the Big West Refinery, which is located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant Kern Canal. The Health Risk Assessment completed for the expansion of the Big West Refinery determined that the impacts associated with the expansion would be less than significant. Therefore, based on modeling conducted in the Big West EIR for the proposed expansion, it is assumed that under the normal operating condition scenario health impacts from the Big West Refinery are not anticipated to adversely impact the proposed Project. The CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook on April 28, 2005 (the “CARB Handbook”), to serve as a general guide for considering health effects associated with siting sensitive receptors proximate to sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The CARB Handbook is only an advisory document and is not binding on any lead agency. The CARB Handbook established a recommendation, among others, to “[a]void siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.”34 Big West of California LLC (“Big West”), owns and operates a 70,000 barrel per day refinery located to the east of the Project Site. Big West is supplied by local California crude oils produced in the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles Basin, and produces motor fuel products used in the Bakersfield and Fresno areas. Based on an evaluation of the prevailing winds, as demonstrated in the meteorological data used in the Project’s air dispersion modeling, the Project is not located immediately downwind of Big West. Valley Fever The proposed Project site is not underlain by the types of sediments that are known to contain valley fever spores. The Project would implement appropriate dust control measures, as required by the SJVAPCD during each construction phases, therefore, the risk of contacting valley fever in connection with implementation of the proposed Project is considered to be unlikely. Thus the impact from Valley Fever is considered less than significant. 34 CARB Handbook, Table 1-1, p. 4, see also p. 23. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-48 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) The proposed Project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, could contribute to global climate change impacts. It should be noted that even a very large individual project would not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to influence global climate change. As discussed above, an evaluation of the Project’s “business-as-usual” greenhouse gas emissions without state mandates and the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions with project design features and with state mandates for 2020 were analyzed. Project’s “Business-as-Usual” GHG Emissions Without State Mandates As described above, the BAU scenario provides a basis for evaluating the performance of a project. The net GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project without State mandates or project features (“business-asusual”) at the completion of each phase (i.e., 2015 for Phase 1, 2035 for Phases I and II, and 2035 for Phases I, II, and III) have been calculated in metric tons per year and are shown in Table IV.K-13, Predicted Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Also included in Table IV.K-13 is the State-wide inventory derived from the ARB Draft California GHG Inventory (November 2007), the latest year for which data are available. As shown in Table IV.K-13, the increase in GHG emissions associated with the Project is approximately 0.012 percent of the 2004 emission level. Table IV.K-13 Predicted Proposed Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Business-as-Usual) Emissions Source CO2e Emissions in Metric Tons per Year Project GHG Emissions Opening Year (Phase I Year 2015) Mobile Source 28,008 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption 3,585 Solid Waste 938 Water Usage/Wastewater Generation 205 Construction 287 Less Existing Land Uses (214) Total 32,809 Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventorya 0.007 percent Project GHG Emissions Project Interim Development (Phases I and II Year 2035) Mobile Source 38,546 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption 6,471 Solid Waste 1,766 Water Usage/Wastewater Generation 369 Construction 476 Less Existing Land Uses (212) Total 47,416 Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventorya 0.010 percent City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-49 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-13 Predicted Proposed Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Business-as-Usual) Emissions Source CO2e Emissions in Metric Tons per Year Project GHG Emissions Project I Project Buildout (Phases I, II and III Year 2035) Mobile Sources 46,623 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption 8,384 Solid Waste 2,394 Water Usage/Wastewater Generation 590 Construction 424 Less Existing Land Uses (212) Total 58,202 Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventorya 0.012 percent a 2004 Statewide totals were derived from the CARB Draft California GHG Inventory, November 2007 (479,740,000 metric tons per year). Source: Matrix Environmental, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix N. Project GHG Emissions with Project Design Features and State Mandates for 2020 The “business as usual” scenario described above provides the baseline for evaluating the performance of the Project. However, it does not consider proposed project design features and State mandates for 2020. Estimates for project performance with 2020 regulations are designed to be used in conjunction with estimates based on current conditions to bracket a plausible range of actual performance given changing circumstances. It is important to note that the proposed Project is not anticipated to reach buildout until 2035; however, polices and programs mandated beyond 2020 are unknown or uncertain. Given the state’s aggressive goals for 2050, it is likely that emissions reductions strategies forecasted to be in effect in 2020 will need to continue and intensify through Project buildout in 2035. However, since specific requirements are not defined for this period, no additional measures for the period 2020 to approximately 2035 are expected to be considered. Thus, this approach likely will overestimate the Project’s GHG emissions at Project buildout in 2035. As discussed above, the Scoping Plan provides key recommendations that include strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving energy efficiency programs such as implementation of California's clean cars standards; increases in the amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the state; and, implementation of a low-carbon fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the state cleaner. In addition to the reductions in GHG emissions from implementation of State mandates, the proposed Project would incorporate a number of project features that would further reduce GHG emissions. The key project design feature that would reduce project-wide GHG emissions from “business-as-usual” conditions so as to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-50 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 meet AB 32 goals (approximately 29 percent below “business-as-usual”) is implementation of the Project’s GHG Management Plan35. Odors Based on the District’s GAMAQI, an analysis of potential odor impacts should be assessed if: (1) a potential source of objectionable odors is proposed for a location near existing sensitive receptors, or (2) sensitive receptors are proposed to be located near an existing source of objectionable odors. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed Project, which consists of the development of commercial, office, and residential uses at the Project site, involves no elements related to these types of activities. Consequently, no objectionable odors are anticipated at the Project site resulting from operation of the proposed Project, and the existing sensitive receptors located adjacent to the Project site would not be exposed to any objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts associated with objectionable odors due to operation of the proposed Project are anticipated. As the proposed Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units, these proposed sensitive receptors could potentially be exposed to existing sources of objectionable odors in the Project site vicinity. The nearest source of potential objectionable odors to the Project site vicinity is the Big West refinery, which is located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant Kern Canal. Refineries such as Big West have processes that can release compounds into the atmosphere that have odors, including the following odorous compounds: • Hydrogen sulfide (H2S); • Mercaptans such as methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) and ethyl mercaptan (C2H5SH); • Disulfides such as carbon disulfide (CS2); • Thiophenes; • Ammonia (NH3); • Amines such as monoethanolamine (MEA); and • Sulfur dioxide (SO2). 35 The GHG emission evaluation does not account for any GHG reductions achieved through the ISR program. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-51 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Based on where the proposed residential uses would be located within the Project site, the Big West refinery would be located approximately 0.8 miles east of these proposed residential uses. According to Table 4-2 in the GAMAQI, petroleum refineries located within two miles of sensitive receptors could generate a degree of odors that could potentially be significant, and thus, would require a more detailed analysis. As offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, no requirements for their control are included in State, federal or District air quality regulations. Instead, the District recommends that a determination of significance on objectionable odors be based on a review of District complaint records that have been collected for the facility in question or similar facilities. Specifically, significant odor problems are defined as: • More than one confirmed confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three year period, or • Three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period. Odor complaints associated with the Big West refinery (formerly owned by Shell Oil) and other refineries in the City that have been documented by the District include one complaint in 2003, three complaints in 2004, and three complaints in 2005.36 Based on these past complaints on the Big West refinery and other refineries in the City, and the fact that additional petroleum processing units are planned for development at the Big West refinery in the near future to increase production of gasoline and diesel fuel, the odors generated at the Big West refinery would result in a significant impact on the proposed residential uses at the Project site. However, this conclusion is based on a strict interpretation of the District’s significance threshold with regard to odors. When considering this conclusion it is important to note that the prevailing winds in the Project area area are from the northwest and the Big West refinery is located east of the Project site, thereby placing the Project site upwind of the Big West refinery. As such, the potential for the significant odor impact described above to actually occur is limited. As a result, the conclusion of a significant odor impact represents a very conservative conclusion that is anticipated to substantially overstate the actual impact that is anticipated to occur. Project Consistency With Applicable Air Quality Plans and Policies Project Consistency With Applicable AQMPs and Other District Guidelines The District currently oversees the implementation of the following three AQMPs with regard to activities occurring within the SJVAB: (1) State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide; (2) Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan; and (3) PM10 Maintenance Plan. An analysis of the Project’s consistency with each of these AQMPs is provided below under separate subheadings. In addition to these three plans, the District has also adopted a series of policies to be used when evaluating General Plans. As the Project includes the adoption of a General Plan Amendment, the Project’s consistency with the applicable District policies are also evaluated, following the analysis of Project consistency with the applicable AQMPs. 36 Kern County Planning Department, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2005121041), Conditional Use Permit No. 3, Map 102-3, Zone Variance No. 3, Map 102-3, February 16, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-52 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide As the District is in attainment with regard to all applicable CO standards, the District is included in the State of California’s SIP for CO. The CO SIP is focused on traffic management practices to reduce CO emissions such that exceedances of the applicable CO standards do not occur. The District has adopted a CO hotspots analysis procedure to demonstrate compliance with the SIP. The results of the CO hotspots analysis are then compared with the NAAQS and the CAAQS to determine if there is an exceedance of either set of standards. As shown above, Project development would not cause an exceedance of a NAAQS or CAAQS during either Project construction or operations. As Project development would not cause an exceedance of a NAAQS or CAAQS with regard to 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentration standards, it is concluded that the Project would be consistent with the SIP for CO. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to the CO SIP. Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan The District is currently in non-attainment with regard to federal ozone standards. Districts that are not in attainment of federal standards are categorized into seven levels of severity: (1) basic, (2) marginal, (3) moderate, (4) serious, (5) severe-15, (6) severe-17,37 and (7) extreme. The SJVAB is currently classified as extreme with regard to federal ozone standards. In response, the District has prepared its Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. This Plan was adopted in 2007 and seeks to achieve attainment of federal ozone standards by November 2010. In June 2005 the U.S. EPA abandoned the federal one hour ozone standard, leaving the District with only needing to meet the conditions of the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The District in an effort to provide developments with a tool to determine compliance with the 2007 ozone plan has established thresholds for ozone precursors, ROG and NOx, as ozone is not directly emitted in the atmosphere, but rather forms from ROG and NOx emissions in the presence of light winds, sunlight and warm temperatures. In order to demonstrate compliance with the ozone plan, a project cannot emit more than 10 tons per year of either ROGs or NOx. To further reduce NOx emissions, the District has implemented Rule 9510, the Indirect Source Rule which requires projects to reduce their NOx emissions during construction and operations by 20 percent and 33 percent, respectively, in comparison to the statewide average. The Project’s construction analysis presented above indicates that Project construction would not exceed the NOx 10-ton per year threshold during the construction of each individual phase and/or concurrent construction of Phases II and III. As Project emissions would not exceed the established threshold, Project development would be consistent with the District’s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. PM10 Maintenance Plan In June 2003 the SJVAPCD adopted its most current PM10 Maintenance Plan, the 2003 PM10 Maintenance Plan. The Plan requires the District to reduce its directly emitted PM10 as well as PM10 precursor NOx emissions. In 37 The “-15” and “-17” designations reflect the number of years within which attainment must be achieved. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-53 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 order to achieve the goals outlined in the PM10 Maintenance Plan the District has developed new rules and amended existing rules. Compliance with the rules and regulations associated with the 2003 PM10 Maintenance Plan demonstrate consistency with the PM10 Maintenance Plan. As the Project would be developed in accordance with all applicable District Regulations and Rules, the Project is concluded to be consistent with the District’s PM10 Maintenance Plan. District Guidelines for General Plans A review of District policies identified 11 policies that would be applicable to the proposed Project. These policies address issues such as promoting mixed-use development, provision of retail opportunities in proximity to residential uses, orderly growth patterns (i.e., infill of vacant parcels), promoting alternative transportation modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, transit, etc.), the location of residential uses relative to sources of toxic emissions, and the incorporation of measures to reduce energy consumption. A tabular comparison of the Project’s consistency with the District’s applicable policies is presented in Table IV.K-14. As demonstrated therein, the Project would successfully implement all of the identified policies. As such, it is concluded that Project development would be consistent with these District policies, and a less than significant impact would occur. Table IV.K-14 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 27: The City shall require residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors to be located an adequate distance from existing and potential sources of toxic emissions such as freeways, major arterials, industrial sites, and hazardous material locations. Consistent. The primary off-site source of toxic emissions for the Project site would be the Big West refinery, which is located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant Kern Canal. As part of the proposed Project, the proposed residential uses would be located on the southwestern portion of the Project site, which is the portion of the site that is located furthest away from the Big West refinery. Policy 34: The City shall encourage new residential, commercial, and industrial development to reduce air quality impacts from area sources and from energy consumption. Consistent. A fundamental aspect of the Project’s design would be incorporating sustainable practices in site development and building design. This Project design component could include the use of alternative energy sources, as well as energy conserving principles. In addition, the residential, retail, and office buildings would comply with the latest Title 24 construction standards. The Project applicant has also agreed to enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement which would offset the Project’s ROG, NOx, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Policy 36: The City shall encourage projects proposing pedestrian or transit-oriented designs at suitable locations. Consistent. The proposed Project is specifically designed to stimulate pedestrian activity with continuity along the street frontage, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-54 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-14 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans Policy Consistency Analysis corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. The Project’s mix of uses would be built around a “main street” concept. Retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional “main street” to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. In addition, an existing transit stop is located less than ½ mile west of the Project site and the Applicant would coordinate with local transit providers to provide transit service directly to the Project site. Policy 40: The City shall encourage mixed-use developments that provide commercial services such as day care centers, restaurants, banks, and stores near employment centers. Consistent. The Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units, which consists of 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family units, up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses. While the Applicant has not yet identified the specific types of retail uses that would be located at the Project site, it is anticipated that on-site retail uses could include an urban, upscale lifestyle retail center, which usually includes a number of commercial services. These retail services would be available to the on-site residential and office uses as well as nearby off-site residential uses. Policy 42: The City shall plan adequate neighborhood commercial shopping areas to serve new residential development. Consistent. Please refer to the policy consistency analysis for Policy 40. Policy 47: The City shall encourage the development of pedestrian-oriented shopping areas within walking distance of high-density residential neighborhoods. Consistent. Please refer to the policy consistency analysis for Policies 36 and 40. The Project creates an upscale lifestyle retail center that integrates the diversity of proposed uses and meets the needs of the surrounding community, which includes the existing residential uses located to the south and west of the Project site, and the proposed on-site residential uses. Policy 51: The City shall provide for an orderly outward expansion of new urban development so that it is contiguous with existing development, allows for the incremental expansion of infrastructure and public services, and minimizes impacts on the environment. Consistent. The Project’s land use plan sets forth an arrangement of land uses that is both internally integrated as well as being integrated with adjacent and nearby off-site uses, particularly the existing residential areas to the south and west of the site. As the Project site is surrounded by existing uses on all sides, it represents an infill development that takes advantage of existing public infrastructure and service systems. By doing so, it minimizes its impacts on the environment. Furthermore, as part of the proposed Project, the new commercial uses would be located towards the eastern and central portions of the Project site and in so doing City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-55 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-14 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans Policy Consistency Analysis takes advantage of the Project site’s frontages on Coffee and Brimhall Roads. Moving westward across the Project site, the proposed on-site land use patterns then transitions to multi-family residential uses, before reaching the western portion of the Project site wherein single-family residential uses are proposed. This arrangement of on-site land uses is also integrated with the pattern of off-site land uses. For example, along Brimhall Road, the Project’s on-site commercial uses are located across from existing and planned commercial uses, while the Project’s residential uses are located across from the off-site residential uses to the south and west, with the on-site single-family residential uses providing a direct interface with the single-family residential uses located to the west of the Project site. Policy 52: The City shall encourage infill of vacant parcels. Consistent. An objective of the proposed Project is to transform the 255-acre Project site, the majority of which is currently vacant, into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. Policy 56: The City shall encourage project sites designed to increase the convenience, safety and comfort of people using transit, walking or cycling. Consistent. The proposed Project would provide pedestrian walkways, bicycle trails, parks, and open space within the Project site. The Project is specifically designed to stimulate pedestrian activity with continuity along the street frontage, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. In addition, adequate lighting would also be provided to provide security and safety in parking areas, service passages, and common areas of the Project site. The intent of the Project’s lighting design would be to contribute to the ambience of the nighttime village center, while providing a general overall level of illumination consistent with customary municipal safety standards. In addition, an existing transit stop is located less than ½ mile west of the Project site and the Applicant would coordinate with local transit providers to provide transit directly to the Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-56 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-14 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 67: The City shall ensure that a comprehensive system of bikeways and pedestrian paths is planned and constructed in accordance with an adopted City/County plan. Consistent. The walkable environment provided by the proposed Project includes parks, trails, open space, and potential future linkages to the City's existing park system to accommodate the recreational needs of employees, visitors and residents. In addition, the bike trails provided onsite would be designed to link with future City bike trail plans as well as promoting bicycling to the various land uses within the Project. Policy 70: The City shall require new major activity centers, office and commercial development to provide secure bicycle storage and parking facilities. Consistent. As part of the proposed Project, bike racks would be provided throughout the Project site. Parking for the proposed Project would be provided in surface parking lots, but may include parking structures if necessary to accommodate required parking on site. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. Project Consistency with the City of Bakersfield’s General Plan Conservation Element The City of Bakersfield General Plan includes a total of 10 elements. The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Policies relating to the issue of air quality are set forth in the General Plan’s Conservation Element. A total of eight policies that are applicable to the proposed Project have been identified. These policies address issues such as encouraging land use patterns which locates residential and commercial land uses in proximity to one another, encouraging alternative transportation modes, and emissions control. A tabular comparison of the Project’s consistency with the applicable air quality policies set forth in the City’s General Plan Conservation Element is presented in Table IV.K-15. As demonstrated therein, the Project would successfully implement all of the identified policies. As such, it is concluded that Project development would be consistent with these Conservation Element policies, and a less than significant impact would occur. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-57 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-15 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the City of Bakersfield General Plan Conservation Element Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 2: Encourage land uses and land use practices which do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation. Consistent. An objective of the proposed Project is to transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. As part of the proposed Project, new residential development would be located in proximity to new commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes to promote a walkable environment that reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, which in turn would reduce air pollution. In addition, the Applicant would enter into a voluntary emissions reduction agreement with the District that would offset the Project’s emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Policy 3: Require dust abatement measures during significant grading and construction operations. Consistent. The Project applicant has agreed to implement a number of dust abatement measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-9 would serve to ensure that the proposed Project would comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII as well as all other applicable District Rules. Policy 12: Encourage the use of mass transit, carpooling, and other transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Consistent. The Project encourages the use of alternate forms of transportation by providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities onsite. Furthermore, the Applicant would work with local transit providers to bring transit service directly to the Project site. To promote a walkable environment, street promenades featuring wide, shaded walkways would be provided onsite that connects with pedestrian paseos, plazas, and open space areas. The proposed office uses would be linked to the activity of the Project’s “main street” by landscaped walkways, while the proposed residential villages would be linked by the main street to larger retail and office uses east of Coffee Road. A network of bike trails and lanes, which are separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, where feasible, would also be provided onsite by the Project that would link with future City bike trail plans. Also refer to consistency analysis of Policy 2 above. Policy 15: Promote the use of bicycles by providing attractive bicycle paths and requiring provision of storage facilities in commercial and industrial projects. Consistent. The Project would include a network of bike trails and lanes, which are separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, where feasible, as well as bike racks throughout the Project site. Policy 18: Encourage walking for short distance trips through the creation of pedestrian friendly sidewalks and street crossings. Consistent. The Project would provide landscaped walkways throughout the site. The architectural character of the site would be specifically designed to stimulate pedestrian activity with continuity along the street frontage, providing overhead architectural features, providing special treatment at corners, treating setbacks from the sidewalk line as active spaces (plazas and walkways), and providing views into the interior of buildings and stores. Policy 19: Promote a pattern of land uses which locates residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial services to minimize vehicular travel. Consistent. The Project would locate residential uses adjacent to retail, theater, and office uses that would create a viable economic center for attracting new businesses, employment, and investment. The Project would establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of the on-site residents and off-site residents, thereby directly resulting in reductions in vehicle miles traveled. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-58 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-15 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies of the City of Bakersfield General Plan Conservation Element Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 20: Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units in concert with commercial uses. Consistent. The Project would include the development of a total of 425 residential units, which consists of 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family units, up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses. Policy 22: Require the provision of secure, convenient bike storage racks at shopping centers, office buildings, and other places of employment in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. Consistent. As part of the proposed Project, bike racks would be provided throughout the Project site. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. MITIGATION MEASURES Presented below are a series of mitigation measures to reduce air emissions generated during Project construction. The Project would implement all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations and the following mitigation measures to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. All fees paid by the Applicant would be used by the District within the SJVAB to reduce emissions, thus resulting in the Project having a less than significant impact with respect to critical regional emissions during Project construction and operations. Construction-Related Project Impacts Regulation VIII Control Measures – The following mitigation measures shall be implemented at all construction sites: K-1 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized with regard to dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. K-2 All on-site unpaved roads roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-3 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall effectively control fugitive dust emissions via the application of water or by presoaking. K-4 During the demolition of the existing on-site buildings, all exterior surfaces of the buildings shall be wetted during demolition. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-59 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 K-5 When materials are transported off-site, all materials shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. K-6 All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) K-7 Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. K-8 Trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the Project site and at the end of each workday. K-9 Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. K-10 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. K-11 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent toward public roadways. K-12 Install wheel washers for exiting trucks, or wash off all truck equipment leaving the site whenever trackout exceeds 50 feet. K-13 Install wind breaks at windward sides of construction areas. K-14 Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation). K-15 All diesel equipment shall be fitted with a CARB certified diesel particulate filter as previously described. K-16 All diesel equipment shall operate on ultra low sulfur, low NOx fuel where available or NOx reducing DOC-SCR as previously described. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The District’s GAMAQI defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The GAMAQI also identifies any proposed project that is determined to have an individual significant air quality impact is also considered to have a cumulative impact. All of the Project’s air quality impacts are less than significant, with the one exception of the exposure of future on-site residents to odors attributed to the operations of the Big West Refinery. However, because this significant impact is solely attributable to the Project’s location, rather than any impacts generated by Project construction nor operations and neither Project construction or operation City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-60 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 would emit any offensive odors that would be cumulatively considerable, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to odors. As stated earlier, the Project is located to the west of the Big West oil refinery. An expansion of activities occurring at Big West has been proposed and is, therefore, considered a related project for the purposes of the Project’s cumulative impact analysis. The proposed Big West expansion project would potentially increase exposure from onsite Project residents to hazardous air pollutants from the Big West refinery. The Health Risk Assessment for the proposed Big West expansion determined that the health risk impacts associated with the proposed expansion would be less than significant.38 As a result, the proposed Big West expansion would not cause a significant cumulative health impact for onsite Project residents. As discussed above, diesel particulate emissions (DPM) emissions associated with Project-related truck traffic will not result in a significant health risk impact to offsite sensitive receptors. Based on a review of the Health Risk Assessment for the proposed Big West expansion, it is anticipated that the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant health risk impact to offsite sensitive receptors. Although the proposed Project is expected to emit greenhouse gases, the emission of greenhouse gases by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of greenhouse gas from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s greenhouse gas emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. The proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered to be substantial when compared to statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is speculative to identify the specific impact, if any, to global climate change from one project’s incremental increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. As such, a project’s greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the significance of potential impacts from the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions is determined on a cumulative basis. The State has mandated a goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, even though statewide population and commerce is predicted to continue to expand. In order to achieve this goal, ARB is in the process of establishing and implementing regulations to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions. However, currently there are no significance thresholds to assist in determining significance at the project or cumulative level. Additionally, there is currently no generally accepted methodology to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions associated with a specific project represents new emissions or existing, displaced emissions. 38 See Big West of California, LLC, Clean Fuels Project, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH # 2005121041 (June 2008). This document is hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-61 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As discussed above, implementation of State mandates and the proposed Project’s project design features would contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. These reductions represent a break from “business-as-usual” that supports State goals for emissions reduction. The methods used to establish this relative reduction are consistent with the approach used in the ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan for the implementation of Assembly Bill 32 through 2020. The proposed Project also identifies appropriate circumstances for the consideration of specific Early Action measures described by the California Climate Action Team. The consistency of the proposed Project with the strategies from the 2006 CAT Report is provided in Appendix N. As shown, the proposed Project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable strategies to reduce GHG emissions via the design of the Project itself including, but not limited to, locating commercial uses in proximity to an existing large off-site residential population. The California Attorney General’s Office has taken an active role in addressing climate change via CEQA, including, but not limited to: submitting comment letters on draft CEQA documents; filing CEQA lawsuits; and entering into related settlement agreements. Additionally, the Attorney General’s Office has created and routinely updates a Fact Sheet listing project design features to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.39 The Attorney General’s Office created this Fact Sheet primarily for the benefit of local agencies processing CEQA documents, acknowledging, “local agencies will help to move the State away from ‘business-as-usual’ and toward a low-carbon future.”40 The Fact Sheet explains that the listed “measures can be included as design features of a project,” but emphasizes that they “should not be considered in isolation, but as part of a larger set of measures that, working working together, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of global warming.”41 The proposed Project is consistent with the Fact Sheet and likely would utilize many of the measures listed therein. The proposed Project’s design and project design features demonstrate a commitment to creating a substantial change from “business-as-usual.” As recommended by the Attorney General, the proposed Project would not consider design features in isolation, and would include an integrated set of emissions reducing features addressing each land use type under the proposed Project. The proposed Project also sets a series of performance targets that would guide design, construction, and operational practices throughout the life of the Project. The result would be a substantial reduction in emissions in comparison to “business-as-usual.” The proposed Project also considered and described specific combinations of current technologies and construction techniques that can achieve targeted emissions reductions under current conditions. The proposed Project 39 CA Attorney General’s Office Fact Sheet, The California Environmental Quality Act – Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. 40 CA Attorney General’s Office Fact Sheet, The California Environmental Quality Act – Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. 41 Ibid. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-62 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 would consider and implement feasible construction practices and energy-related technologies consistent with the recommendations and objectives of the responsible Federal, state, and local agencies. In the absence of adopted standards and established significance thresholds, and given the proposed Project’s consistency with State regulatory actions regarding greenhouse gases, the Projects’ contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change would be less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The mitigation measures outlined above would serve to reduce emissions during both Project construction and operations. Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-16 would reduce PM10 emissions during Project construction. Reductions in construction PM10 regional construction emissions would only occur during those years when site grading would occur (i.e., Year 1 of Phase 1 construction, 2024 and 2034. Table IV.K-18 presents the Project’s emissions after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. As shown therein, the Project’s less than significant regional construction impacts have been reduced further. Furthermore, Project impacts with regard to localized CO concentrations during Project construction and odors during Project construction would also be less than significant. Table IV.K-18 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction After Mitigation Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx CO a SOx PM10 PM2.5 Phase I Grading/Construction Emissions – Year 1 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 7.38 10.66 34.31 0.01 2.05 1.12 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.06 0.57 Total Emissions After Mitigation -Year 1 7.38 9.90 34.31 0.01 0.99 0.55 Construction Emissions – Year 2 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 4.53 6.06 22.51 0.01 0.36 0.31 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions After Mitigation -Year 2 4.53 6.06 22.51 0.01 0.36 0.31 District Threshold 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 Significant Impact – Year 1 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – Year 2 No No n/a n/a No No Phase II Demolition/Site Grading/Construction Emissions– 2024 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 2.80 2.45 18.69 0.00 1.80 0.47 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.39 0.29 Total Emissions After Mitigation -2024 2.80 2.45 18.69 0.00 0.41 0.18 Construction – 2025 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 1.82 1.93 13.35 0.00 0.12 0.10 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-63 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.K-18 Forecasted Annual Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Project Construction After Mitigation Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Year ROG NOx CO a SOx PM10 PM2.5 Total Emissions After Mitigation – 2025 1.82 1.93 13.35 0.00 0.12 0.10 District Threshold 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 Significant Impact – 2024 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – 2025 No No n/a n/a No No Phase II and Phase III Site Grading/Construction Emissions – 2034 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 1.91 2.20 12.40 0.00 1.78 0.46 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.39 0.29 Total Emissions After Mitigation – 2034 1.91 2.20 12.40 0.00 0.39 0.17 Construction – 2035 Project Emissions (Before Mitigation) 0.74 1.05 5.85 0.00 0.08 0.06 Emission Reductions Per Mitigation Measures K-1 Through K-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Emissions After Mitigation – 2035 0.74 1.05 5.85 0.00 0.08 0.06 District Threshold 10 10 n/a n/a 15 15 Significant Impact – 2034 No No n/a n/a No No Significant Impact – 2035 No No n/a n/a No No a As discussed above, significant CO impacts are evaluated based on one-hour and eight-hour ambient CO standards and not on total emissions. To evaluate potential CO impacts, refined air pollution dispersion modeling was performed. This analysis is sum Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix N. With the implementation of the identified project design features, Project impacts with regard to localized CO concentrations during Project operations, hazardous air pollutants, as well as consistency with the applicable AQMPs and GHG policies are all less than significant. Due to the proximity of the proposed residential uses at the Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), the residential uses would likely be exposed to odors generated daily at the refinery. As discussed previously, due to past odor complaints documented by the District at this refinery, a significant impact associated with objectionable odors would occur at the proposed on-site residential uses. There are currently no feasible mitigation measures available that can be implemented by the proposed Project to eliminate or reduce these odors. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, it is important to note that since the area’s prevailing winds originate from the northwest and the Project Site is located to the west of the Big West refinery, it is unlikely that the Project’s residential uses would experience odor impacts attributable to Big West’s emissions. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.K. Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.K-64 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS L. NOISE INTRODUCTION This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. This includes the potential for the proposed Project to result in impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the Project site to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan or the City of Bakersfield’s noise ordinance. As the Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport, or the vicinity of a private airstrip, the issue of aircraft noise does not need to be addressed in this analysis. Finally, mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to noise and vibration are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Project. Data used to prepare this analysis was obtained from the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element, the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, and by measuring and modeling existing and future noise levels at the Project site and the surrounding land uses. Traffic information contained in the traffic study prepared for the proposed Project was used to prepare the noise modeling for vehicular sources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (“dBA”) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Table IV.L-1, Representative Environmental Noise Levels, illustrates representative noise levels in the environment. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities —110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —90— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— Broadcast/Recording Studio —10— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, 1998. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: • Leq – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. Noise environments and the noise effects of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Community noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL are generally considered low, moderate levels are considered to be in the 60 to 70 dBA CNEL range, and high levels above 70 dBA CNEL. Examples of noise levels in urban residential or semicommercial areas are typically 55 to 60 dBA CNEL, whereas commercial locations are typically 60 dBA CNEL. People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA CNEL) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA CNEL). It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from three to five dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors such as the weather and reflecting or barriers also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.1 1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., train operations, motor vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table IV.L-2, Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration. Table IV.L-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Framework Federal Noise Standards There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the proposed Project. With regard to noise exposure and workers, the Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. Vibration Standards The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table IV.L-3, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria. Table IV.L-3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: (1) Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity, (2) Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and (3) Vibration Category 3 – Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. Under conditions where there are an infrequent number of events per day, the FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 80 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 83 VdB for City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Category 3 buildings.2 Under conditions where there are an occasional number of events per day, the FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 75 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 78 VdB for Category 3 buildings.3 No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses. State Noise Standards The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Office of Noise Control has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table IV.L-4, Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments. In addition, Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the State to prepare and adopt a comprehensive longrange general plan for its physical development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. Vibration Standards There are no State vibration standards applicable to the proposed Project. However, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) noted in its 2002 technical publication titled “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences)” that an upper PPV criterion level of 0.08 inch per second is recommended for continuous vibrations to which “ruins and ancient monuments” should be subjected.4 This criterion level may also be used for historical buildings, or buildings that are in poor condition. For normal dwelling houses with plastered walls and ceilings, Caltrans indicates that a PPV criterion level of 0.20 inch per second is the threshold at which there is a risk of “architectural” damage. 2 “Infrequent events” is defined by the Federal Transit Administration as being fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 3 “Occasional events” is defined by the Federal Transit Administration as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 4 According to Caltrans’ “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences)” publication, continuous vibrations refer to traffic, train, and most construction vibrations, with the exception of pile driving, blasting, and some other types of construction/demolition. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-4 Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments (in dBA) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 -60 55 -70 70 -75 above 70 Multi-Family Homes 50 -65 60 -70 70 -75 above 70 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 -70 60 -70 70 -80 above 80 Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50 -65 60 -70 70 -80 above 80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters ---50 -70 ---above 65 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports ---50 -75 ---above 70 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 -70 ---67 -75 above 72 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 -75 ---70 -80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial 50 -70 67 -77 above 75 ---Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 -75 70 -80 above 75 ---a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Office of Noise Control, California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Local Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the State. The Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise in the City and provide goals, policies, and programs that ensure that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. The Noise Element is a tool that city planners use to achieve and maintain compatible land uses with community noise levels. For transportation noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets a standard of 65 dB CNEL at the outdoor-activity areas of noise-sensitive City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 uses and a standard of 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Noise-sensitive uses include residences, schools, hospitals, and recreational areas. For non-transportation noise sources (e.g., commercial and industrial properties), the Noise Element applies hourly noise level performance standards at residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Table IV.L-5, Hourly Noise Level Performance Standards, summarizes the hourly standards. Table IV.L-5 Hourly Noise Level Performance Standards Maximum Acceptable Noise Level (dBA) Min./Hr. (Ln) Daytime (7 A.M. to 10 P.M.) Nighttime (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) 30 (L50) 55 50 15 (L25) 60 55 5 (L8.3) 65 60 1 (L1.7) 70 65 0 (Lmax) 75 70 Note: Ln means the percentage of time the noise level is exceeded during an hour. L50 means the level exceeded 50% of the hour, and L25 is the level exceeded 25% of the hour, etc. Source: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, 2002. The Noise Element also establishes standards to address substantial changes in noise levels that may be caused by transportation noise associated with a project. Based on these standards, a significant increase of existing ambient noise levels affecting existing noise-sensitive land uses (receptors), and requiring the adoption of practical and feasible mitigation measures, is deemed to occur where the transportation noise associated with a project will cause: • An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL; • An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL; or • An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL. Furthermore, the Noise Element established standards for cumulative noise impacts for mobile sources. Based on these standards, a project’s contribution to to a noise increase would normally be considered cumulatively considerable and considered significant when ambient noise levels affect noise sensitive land uses (receptors) and when the following occurs: • A project increases the ambient (cumulative without project) noise level by 1 dB or more; and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • The cumulative with project noise levels cause the following: o An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL; o An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL; or o An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code The City of Bakersfield has also provided additional standards for construction in Section 9.22.050, Noise During Construction, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Section 9.22.050 states the following: A. Except as provided herein or in subsection B, C or D of this section, it is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, demolish, alter or repair any building, or to grade or excavate land, streets or highways, other than between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekends; provided, however, that city crews and those of the city’s contractors performing street work between 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. are exempt herefrom if the city engineer has directed that work be performed between such hours to alleviate potential traffic congestion. B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, if the city manager determines that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavating and grading of land, streets or highways between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., and if he or she further determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest by virtue of the requirements provided in subsection A of this section, he or she may grant a permit for such work to be done between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M., upon application being made at at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. Such permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days, and may be extended by the city manager for a period not to exceed three days. C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any work of construction performed one thousand feet or more from the nearest residential dwelling. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to performance of emergency work as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 3924 § 3 (part), 1999) Section 17.08.140(G) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code also provides design standards for large retail developments in the City to reduce noise levels associated with delivery, loading, and solid waste operations on adjacent residential uses. Section 17.08.140(G) states the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 1. No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall be within thirty feet of any properties zoned or developed with residential uses. 2. In addition to compliance with the noise level performance standards table in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan General Plan for exterior daytime/nighttime exterior noise levels, other than trash removal by the city or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations shall not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed with residential uses. These activities may occur if the developer submits evidence to the City that sound mitigation will reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than three dBA above the measured background noise level at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to said residential lands. Evidence of compliance must include background data (without the subject equipment operating) at said property line for the subject period, modeling results or test data from the proposed equipment, or noise data gathered from a similar location if approved by the city. 3. Loading docks shall include separate walls for noise attenuation adjacent to residential areas and be screened with landscaping so they are not visible from said residential areas or public streets. 4. Trash pickup areas shall not be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed matching the design of the center. City of Bakersfield Groundborne Vibration Regulation The City of Bakersfield has not adopted any thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts. Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels The approximately 255-acre Project site is located in the northwestern portion portion of the City of Bakersfield, east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway is adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site and bisects the eastern portion of the site. The majority of the Project site, approximately 200 acres of the 255-acre Project site, is currently vacant. Uses that currently occupy the Project site include: • Pan Pacific Petroleum Company, Inc., which owns and operates a trucking company within an approximately six acre portion of the Project site located to the east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway; • An approximately 6,300-square-foot office building with 53 parking spaces located in the northeast corner of the Project site that is currently leased to ConocoPhillips; • Two active oil wells located on portions of the Project site east of Coffee Road, with one located north and one located south of the BNSF Railway; and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • City retention areas that currently occur over approximately 2.5 acres of the Project site. The uses surrounding the Project site include residential uses to the west and south, and commercial uses to the east and southeast. Industrial uses consisting of a decommissioned PG&E power plant and electrical substation are located to the north of the Project site, on the north side of the BNSF Railway. The Big West refinery is located east of the Project site, beyond the Friant Kern Canal. Additionally, to the north of the Project site is the Rosedale Highway commercial corridor, which includes a variety of uses such as the Northwest Promenade and a Lowes Home Improvement Center. To establish baseline noise conditions at the Project site and its vicinity, existing daytime noise levels were monitored both on-site and at off-site locations where existing sensitive receptors were located. The off-site sensitive receptors included the single-family residential uses located to the west and south of the Project site, and one single-family residence located east of the Project site, across Coffee Road. The noise survey was conducted using a Larson-Davis 831 precision noise meter, which meets and exceeds the minimum industry standard performance requirements for “Type 1” standard instruments as defined in the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S1.4. At the noise measurement locations, listed in Table IV.L-6, Existing Daytime Noise Levels Onsite and at Sensitive Off-site Locations, the sound level meter was programmed to record the ambient noise levels over a cumulative period of 15 minutes. As existing single-family residential uses are located to the west and south of the Project site, as well as one single-family residence that is located east of the Project site, across Coffee Road, noise measurements were taken at these nearest off-site sensitive receptors to identify representative noise levels at these sensitive receptors. In addition, noise measurements were also conducted on-site to quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the Project site. Both the on-site and offsite noise measurements are representative of the typical existing noise levels within and immediately adjacent to the Project site, respectively. The average noise levels and sources of noise monitored at these locations are shown in Table IV.L-6, with the locations identified in Figure IV.L-1, Noise Monitoring Locations. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-6 Existing Daytime Noise Levels Onsite and at Sensitive Off-site Locations Noise Measurement Location Primary Noise Sources Noise Level Statistics (dBA) Leq Lmin Lmax L10 L50 L90 1. Single-family residential uses located west of the Project site, across Windsong Street. Traffic noise on Windsong Street; aircraft overhead. 53.5 36.8 72.1 53.5 46.9 41.4 2. Southwest corner of Project site, at the intersection of Windsong Street and Brimhall Road. Traffic noise on Brimhall Road. 71.1 53.1 88.4 74.7 66.6 57.5 3. Single-family residential community area located southwest of Project site, across Brimhall Road. Traffic noise on Brimhall Road. 56.6 42.8 66.1 60.6 54.2 47.2 4. Northern boundary of Project site located in the western portion of site, where new residential uses are proposed. Freight train traveling by the Project site on the BNSF Railway. 48.4 40.0 59.8 53.7 43.2 41.1 5. Northeastern corner of Project site boundary located west of Coffee Road and south of BNSF Railway. Traffic on Coffee Road overpass. 56.7 46.4 62.1 60.0 55.4 51.4 6. Single-family residence located east of Project site, across Coffee Road. Traffic on Coffee Road. 68.8 56.8 73.6 71.4 68.7 62.8 7. Southeast corner of Project site, at the intersection of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road. Traffic on Coffee Road and Brimhall Road. 69.5 59.9 80.1 73.3 67.1 63.6 8. Single-family residential uses located south of Project site, across Brimhall Road. Traffic on Brimhall Road. 70.9a 49.3a 80.3a 74.6a 69.6a 60.9a a As the single-family residential uses are located behind an approximately seven-foot wall, a 5 dBA reduction is accounted for in the noise levels that were measured. Source: Christopher A Joseph and Associates, 2007. Noise measurement data are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. Figure IV.L-1 Noise Monitoring Locations Source: Psomas, 2007. Feet 0 600 1200 Legend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 # Project Area Existing Street Future Street Noise Monitoring Locations City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Existing Railroad Noise Levels The BNSF Railway currently runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site, and bisects the eastern portion of the Project site. As for noise exposure in terms of the CNEL, it has been documented that freight and passenger operations on the BNSF Railway in the City typically generate, at a distance of 100 feet from the railway, a CNEL of 72 dB at locations that are not influenced by the grade crossing (where the train’s warning horn is applied), and a CNEL of 77 dB near the grade crossing.5 The distances to the 65 dB CNEL contour are approximately 290 feet at locations not influenced by the warning horn, and as far as approximately 630 feet at locations that are influenced by the warning horn. In addition, as shown in Table IV.L-6, the noise associated with a freight train traveling along the portion of the BNSF Railway that passes by the Project site was captured during the noise monitoring at Noise Measurement Location 4, which is the location in the western portion of the Project site where the new residential uses are proposed. The freight train was the loudest source of noise during that noise measurement, with a Lmax value of 59.8 dBA representing the maximum instantaneous noise level that was experienced at the noise measurement location when the train passed by the Project site. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Off-site Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for eight roadway segments located in close proximity of the Project site. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the Project’s traffic analysis. The traffic noise model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table IV.L-7, Existing (2009) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite.6 5 City of Bakersfield, Rosedale Ranch Project (GPA/ZC #04-0671) Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, March 2005. 6 Table IV.K-7 indicates noise levels at 75 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment, which is a typical distance for residential setbacks. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-7 Existing (2009) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite a Roadway Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment dBA CNEL b,c Calloway Drive North of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.8 South of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.4 North of Brimhall Road Residential 67.7 South of Brimhall Road Residential 67.3 Brimhall Road West of Calloway Drive Residential 65.6 East of Calloway Drive Residential 64.6 West of Coffee Road Residential 64.6 Coffee Road North of Brimhall Road Residential 75.0 a The traffic volume data for Year 2009 was determined based on traffic counts from previous years (2005-2008) and an analysis of growth trends in the Project Study Area. b Values represent noise levels at 75 feet from the centerline of each roadway. c Includes 5 dBA reduction where noise walls are located along road right-of-ways. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., June 2009. Table Source: Christopher A Joseph and Associates, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels The only sources of groundborne vibration in the Project site vicinity are heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on local roadways, and freight and passenger train travel on the BNSF Railway. Trucks and buses typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB at 50 feet, and these levels could reach 72 VdB at 50 feet where trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road.7 Locomotive powered passenger and freight trains traveling at approximately 50 miles per hour (mph) can generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of up to 85 VdB at 50 feet from the railroad.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The proposed Project has the potential to result in increased noise levels that may exceed permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the proposed Project would be construction activities at the Project site and Project-related traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed 7 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. 8 Ibid. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 commercial and residential developments. Secondary sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) throughout the Project site. The net increase in Project site noise levels generated by these activities and other sources have been quantitatively evaluated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. The proposed Project’s potential to increase groundborne vibration is also evaluated. Groundborne vibration would be generated during the construction phase of the proposed Project by various construction-related activities and equipment. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by these sources have also been quantitatively evaluated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were forecasted using data published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Potential Project construction noise levels are forecasted for off-site locations that are sensitive to noise, including existing residences. Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels have been calculated for selected roadway segment locations around the Project site. The noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the Project’s traffic analysis. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California, as described above, by Caltrans. Groundborne Vibration Associated with Construction Equipment Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were forecasted based on data published by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. for the FTA. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction of the proposed Project are identified for off-site locations that are sensitive to vibration, including existing residences. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact to noise if it were to result in one or more of the following: (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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Based on the planning standards contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Noise Ordinance, the proposed Project would result in a significant noise impact if: • Noise-generating construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of residences outside the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and outside the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekends; • Existing residential land uses would be exposed to transportation noise exceeding the following thresholds: o Less than 60 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 5.0 dB or greater with the Project; o 60 to 65 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 3.0 dB or greater with the Project; or o Greater than 65 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 1.5 dB or greater with the Project; • Outdoor use areas of proposed on-site noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise exceeding 65 dB CNEL; • Indoor use areas of proposed on-site noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise exceeding 45 dB CNEL; • Existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from proposed commercial or industrial uses exceeding the performance standards set forth in Table IV.L-5; or • The proposed Project does not comply with Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which addresses noise associated with large retail developments. In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration is considered “excessive.” Thus, in terms of construction-related vibration impacts City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 on buildings, the adopted guidelines/recommendations by the FTA and Caltrans to limit groundborne vibration based on the age and/or condition of the structures that are located in close proximity to construction activity are used in this analysis to evaluate potential groundborne vibration impacts. Based on the FTA and Caltrans criteria, construction impacts relative to groundborne vibration would be considered significant if the following were to occur: • Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed 0.5 inches per second at any building that is constructed with reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber; • Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed 0.3 inches per second at any engineered concrete and masonry buildings; and • Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed 0.2 inches per second at any non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. In terms of groundborne vibration impacts associated with human annoyance during construction, as well as human annoyance on the proposed residential uses at the Project site from operation of the freight and passenger trains on the BNSF Railway, this analysis uses the FTA’s vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses under conditions where there are an occasional number of events of the same kind per day. These thresholds are 65 VdB at buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations, 75 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 78 VdB at other institutional buildings.9 Project Design Features The following Project Design Features with respect to noise, have been incorporated into the Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the Project: • The location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with large retail development portions of the proposed Project site would be prohibited to be within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed solely with residential uses. In addition, other than trash removal by the City or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations at the Project site would not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed solely with residential uses unless evidence is submitted to the City by the developer that sound mitigation would be implemented to reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than 3 dBA above the measured background noise level 9 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to the affected residential uses. • Loading docks at the proposed Project site would be required to include separate walls for noise attenuation, if they are adjacent to residential areas, and these walls would be required to be screened with landscaping so that they are not visible from residential areas or public streets. Furthermore, as part of the Project’s design features, trash pickup areas within the proposed Project site are not allowed to be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed to match the design of the center. • The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design any necessary treatments for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses during each of the three phases of development (i.e., opening day (Phase I) in 2015, Phase II in 2035, and Project buildout (Phase III) in 2035) to ensure that nearby off-site residences would not be exposed to operational noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, methods such as: o Use of enclosures or localized barriers around equipment noise sources (i.e., HVAC units, exhaust fans, trash pickup areas, etc.); and o Placement of barriers between the off-site and on-site residences and commercial and office uses. Project Impacts Construction Noise Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition of the existing on-site uses, grading of the Project site, installation of new utilities, paving, and building fabrication for the proposed commercial and residential developments. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The U.S. EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table IV.L-8, Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels. These noise levels would diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-8 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Levels at 50 Feet with Mufflers (dBA Leq) Noise Levels at 60 Feet with Mufflers (dBA Leq) Noise Levels at 100 Feet with Mufflers (dBA Leq) Noise Levels at 200 Feet with Mufflers (dBA Leq) Ground Clearing 82 80 76 70 Excavation, Grading 86 84 80 74 Foundations 77 75 71 65 Structural 83 81 77 71 Finishing 86 84 80 74 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. During construction, three basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate noise at the Project site. First, with the exception of the two active oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities, the existing on-site uses would be demolished, with the resulting debris hauled off. Second, the Project site would be graded to accommodate the building foundations. The last activity would entail the construction and development of the proposed Project, which includes up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, 600,000 square feet of office uses, and a total of 425 residential units. It should be noted that the building construction associated with the proposed Project is proposed to occur in three phases, with Project buildout anticipated by 2035. The following three development phases are anticipated: Opening day (Phase I) development in 2015 would consist of the development of approximately 57 percent (800,000 square feet) of the proposed retail uses, including theater uses and approximately 33 percent (200,000 square feet) of the proposed office uses. Development of Phase II by 2035 would include completion of the Project’s retail component (another 600,000 square feet for a total of 1,400,000 square feet) and approximately 67 percent (another 200,000 square feet for a total of 400,000 square feet) of the proposed office uses. Development of Phase III, also by by 2035, would include completion of the Project’s office component (another 200,000 square feet for a total of 600,000 square feet) and all of the proposed residential uses (425 dwelling units). During construction of the proposed Project, the nearest and most notable off-site sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing single-family uses located to the west and south of the Project site boundary, and the existing single-family residence that is located south and east of the Project site, across Coffee Road. Specifically, these off-site sensitive receptors include: • The single-family residential uses located approximately 73 feet west of the Project site, across Windsong Street; • The single-family residential uses located approximately 109 feet south of the Project site, across Brimhall Road; and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • The single-family residence located approximately 145 feet and 182 feet from eastern and western portion of the Project site boundary, respectively. Due to the use of construction equipment during the construction phase, the proposed Project would expose these off-site sensitive receptors to increased ambient exterior noise levels. As shown in Table IV.L-8, outdoor noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors 50 feet from the noise source could range from 77 dBA to 86 dBA Leq with the use of noise-attenuating devices. Table IV.L-9, Exterior Noise at Nearest Off-site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction, shows the peak construction noise levels that would occur at the off-site sensitive uses during construction at the Project site. As shown in Table IV.L-9, the peak construction noise levels experienced by the off-site sensitive receptors would range from approximately 74 dBA Leq at the single-family residential uses located south of the Project site, across Brimhall Road, to approximately 83 dBA Leq at the single-family residential uses located west of the Project site, across Windsong Street, with the use of mufflers on the construction equipment. The construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur within 1,000 feet of the existing off-site sensitive receptors. Table IV.L-9 Exterior Noise at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction Sensitive Land Use Approximate Distance to Project Site (ft.) Estimated Construction Noise Level at Receptor (dBA Leq) a Single-family residential uses west of Project site, across Windsong Street 73 82.7 Single-family residential uses south of Project site, across Brimhall Road 109 74.2 b Single-family residence south of eastern portion of Project site and east of western portion of Project site, across Coffee Road 145 feet and 182 feet from western and eastern portions of the Project site, respectively 78.8 c a The noise level was determined with the following equation from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Leq = Leq at 50 ft. – 20 Log(D/50), where Leq = noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, Leq at 50 ft.= noise level of source at 50 feet. b The estimated construction noise level includes an additional 5 dBA reduction as these single-family residential uses are located behind a noise wall. c As this single-family residence is located both south and east of the Project site, the construction noise level includes the composite noise levels should construction occur concurrently at both portions of the Project site. Source: Christopher A Joseph and Associates, December 2007. It should be noted, however, that the increase in noise levels at all off-site sensitive receptors during construction at the Project site would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are likely when Project construction occurs in proximity to off-site receptors. Furthermore, such disturbances would not occur when Project construction is located more than 1,000 feet from an off-site receptor. In addition, the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., grading) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction) as the physical structure of the proposed commercial, office, and residential structures that are constructed would break the line-ofsight noise transmission from the Project site to the nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, this same effect would also occur if structures that are built at the early stages of Project construction are located between an active on-site construction site and an off-site sensitive noise receptor as the early construction would serve as barriers against the construction noise that would occur during the later stages of construction at the Project site. Overall, construction noise would occur throughout the duration of the construction activities associated associated with the proposed Project, with some of the construction activities occurring within 1,000 feet of the existing off-site residential uses. As discussed previously under the heading of Regulatory Framework, Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code regulates noise from construction activities. For construction activities occurring within 1,000 feet from residential uses, construction would be limited to the hours of 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends. The construction activities associated with the proposed Project would comply with the noise regulations established in Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. As such, construction-related noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3, which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction at the Project site, would serve to further reduce the the noise levels associated with construction of the proposed Project to the maximum extent feasible. Overall, construction-related noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. Construction-Related Groundborne Vibration Construction activities that would occur within the Project site would include demolition as well as grading, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table IV.L-10, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate during the construction of the proposed Project. Based on the information presented in Table IV.L-10, vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-10 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB) 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006; and Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 2007. As discussed previously, construction activities at the Project site would have the potential to impact the nearest surrounding off-site sensitive receptors, which include the following: • The single-family residential uses located approximately 73 feet west of the Project site, across Windsong Street; • The single-family residential uses located approximately 109 feet south of the Project site, across Brimhall Road; and • The single-family residence located approximately 145 feet and 182 feet from eastern and western portion of the Project site boundary, respectively. Table IV.L-11, Groundborne Vibration Levels at Nearest Off-site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction, shows the estimated construction-related groundborne vibration levels that would occur at the identified off-site sensitive uses during construction at the Project site. As shown in Table IV.L-11, the vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive receptors would range from 0.005 PPV at the single-family residence located south of the eastern portion (across Coffee Road) of the Project site, to 0.018 PPV at the single-family residential uses located immediately west of the Project site, across Windsong Street. Overall, the vibration velocities experienced by the offsite sensitive receptors are low and would not exceed any of the FTA or Caltrans’ construction vibration damage criteria. Thus, a less-than-significant impact associated with groundborne vibration during construction of the proposed Project would occur at the off-site sensitive uses. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-11 Vibration Levels at Nearest Off-Site Sensitive Uses From Project Construction Sensitive Uses Offsite Distance to Project Site (ft.) Estimated PPV (in/sec) a Estimated Vibration Levels (VdB) b Single-family residential uses west of Project site, across Windsong Street 73 0.018 73.0 Single-family residential uses south of Project site, across Brimhall Road 109 0.010 67.8 Single-family residence south of eastern portion of Project site and east of western portion of Project site, across Coffee Road 145 feet east of western portion of Project site 0.006 65.9 c 182 feet south of eastern portion of Project site 0.005 a The vibration velocities at the off-site sensitive uses are determined with the following equation from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: PPVequip=PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where PPVequip = peak particle velocity in in/sec of equipment, PPVref = reference vibration level in in/sec at 25 feet, D = distance from the equipment to the receive. b The vibration levels at the off-site sensitive uses are determined with the following equation from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Lv(D)=Lv(25 ft) – 30log(D/25), where Lv = vibration level of equipment, D = distance from the equipment to the receiver, Lv(25 ft) = vibration level of equipment at 25 feet. c As this single-family residence is located both south and east of the Project site, the estimated construction-related vibration level in VdB includes the composite vibration level should construction occur concurrently at both portions of the Project site. It should be noted that due to the nature of the PPV, which is the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration velocity, a composite PPV is not calculated. Source: Christopher A Joseph and Associates, December 2007. In terms of human annoyance, the vibration levels forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive receptors would range from 65.9 VdB at the single-family residence located south of the eastern portion of the Project site (across Coffee Road), to 73.0 VdB at the single-family residential uses located west of the Project site, across Windsong Street. Because none of the vibration levels at the off-site sensitive uses would exceed the FTA’s threshold of 75 VdB for residences, the vibration impact at these off-site sensitive uses during construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Operational Noise Traffic Noise on Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses The increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed Project could increase the ambient noise levels at sensitive off-site locations (i.e., residential uses) in the Project vicinity. These potential impacts were analyzed using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), which calculates the CNEL noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, based on sitespecific traffic volumes, distances, speeds and/or noise barriers. Based on the traffic report prepared for the proposed Project, included as Appendix F, Traffic Study, to this Draft EIR, in combination with an analysis of the surrounding land uses, roadway noise levels were forecasted for each development phase City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 of the proposed Project (i.e., opening day of Phase I at 2015, Phase II development at 2035, and Phase III development also at 2035) to determine if the proposed Project’s vehicular traffic would result in a significant impact at off-site, noise-sensitive receptor locations. Off-site locations in the Project vicinity would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the additional traffic generated by the proposed Project during each development phase. The proposed Project’s contribution to increases in noise levels at selected roadway segments located in close proximity to the Project site that are fronted by noise-sensitive uses during each of the three development phases are identified in Table IV.L-12, Predicted Future (Phase I -2015) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite, Table IV.L-13, Predicted Future (Phase II -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite, and Table IV.L-L-14, Predicted Future (Phase III -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite. These tables identify the changes in future noise levels along the study-area roadway segments in the Project vicinity due to implementation of the proposed Project during each development phase. Based on the City’s noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 5.0 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the ambient noise level without the project is less than 60 dBA CNEL; an increase of 3.0 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the ambient noise level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the ambient noise level without the project is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table IV.L-12, aside from the three roadway segments of Brimhall Road that are located west and east of Calloway Drive and west of Coffee Road, the noise levels at all the other study roadway segments under the “Future (2015) Without Project” scenario, which serves as a baseline for the ambient noise level by which the proposed Project’s contribution is compared against, would exceed 65.0 dBA CNEL. Consequently, an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater at these roadways due to the proposed Project would result in a significant impact at these roadway segments. As the noise levels at the roadway segments of Brimhall Road located west and east of Calloway Drive and west of Coffee Road under the “Future (2015) Without Project” scenario would be between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL, an increase of 3.0 dBA CNEL or greater at these roadways due to the proposed Project would result in a significant impact. As shown in Table IV.L-12, the increase in local noise levels resulting from the proposed Project would range from a minimum of 0.3 dBA CNEL at the roadway segment of Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway, to a maximum of 3.3 dBA CNEL at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive. With the exception of the roadway segments of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive and west of Coffee Road, noise level increases of less than 1.5 dBA CNEL would occur at all of the remaining roadway segments. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-12 Predicted Future (Phase I -2015) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Future (2015) Without Project b Future (2015) With Project (Phase I) Increase Significance Threshold c Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.6 66.9 0.3 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.7 67.2 0.5 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 66.9 67.3 0.4 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 67.9 68.3 0.4 1.5 No Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 64.4 64.8 0.4 3.0 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 60.4 63.7 3.3 3.0 Yes Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 63.4 65.1 1.7 3.0 No Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 74.7 75.7 1.0 1.5 No a The noise levels along the study roadway segments include a 5 dBA reduction where noise walls are located along the roadway right-of-ways. b It should be noted that traffic noise levels under the “Future (2015) Without Project” scenario would actually be lower than the existing (2009) traffic noise levels at seven of the eight identified roadway segments. The decrease in noise levels at these roadway segments is primarily due to the proposed Westside Parkway improvement. This proposed east-west corridor, which would be partially completed by 2015, would take traffic off of some of the existing roadways and redistribute traffic in the Project area, thereby resulting in lower traffic volumes on some of the existing roadways in the Project area. c Based on the City’s noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 3.0 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL, while an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.. Based on the forecast of future noise levels that are shown in Table IV.L-12, the proposed Project would exceed the City’s identified noise thresholds at the segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this roadway segment, this impact would be significant. In terms of adjoining land uses, these significant impacts would occur at the single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road, Road, east of Calloway Drive, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would be barely perceived, if at all, by the average City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 person; however, individuals sensitive to noise would likely perceive an increase in noise levels at locations where the increase is over 3 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table IV.L-13, the proposed Project would, during the Phase II development year of 2035, increase local noise levels at one of the study roadway segments (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) such that the noise increase would exceed the City’s identified noise thresholds. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this one roadway segment, this impact would be significant. Table IV.L-13 Predicted Future (Phase II -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Future (2035) Without Project b Future (2035) With Project (Phase II) Increase Significance Threshold c Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.6 67.9 0.3 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 68.1 68.3 0.2 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 68.4 68.6 0.2 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 69.2 69.6 0.4 1.5 No Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 65.8 66.0 0.2 1.5 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 62.8 65.0 2.2 3.0 No Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 65.3 66.8 1.5 1.5 Yes Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 75.9 77.1 1.2 1.5 No a The noise levels along the study roadway segments include a 5 dBA reduction where noise walls are located along road right-ofways. b It should be noted that traffic noise level under the “Future (2035) Without Project” scenario would actually be lower than the existing (2009) traffic noise level the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive. The decrease in noise levels at this roadway segment is primarily due to the proposed Westside Parkway improvement. This proposed east-west corridor, which would be partially completed by 2015, would take traffic off of some of the existing roadways and redistribute traffic in the Project area, thereby resulting in lower traffic volumes on some of the existing roadways in the Project area. c Based on the City’s noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 3.0 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL, while an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. During the Phase II development year of 2035, the increase in local noise levels at the study roadway segments resulting from the proposed Project, which is shown in Table IV.L-13, would range from a City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 minimum of 0.2 dBA CNEL to a maximum of 2.2 dBA CNEL. With the exception of the roadway segments of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive and west of Coffee Road, noise level increases of less than 1.5 dBA CNEL would occur at all of the remaining roadway segments. The minimum increase in noise levels of 0.2 dBA CNEL would occur at two roadway segments of Calloway Drive (i.e., south of Rosedale Highway and north of Brimhall Road) and the roadway segment of Brimhall Road (i.e., west of Calloway Drive), while the maximum increase in noise levels of 2.2 dBA CNEL would occur at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would not be perceptible in the context context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 3 dBA CNEL are not audible in the context of the community noise environment. During the Phase III buildout year of 2035, the increase in local noise levels at the study roadway segments resulting from the proposed Project, which is shown in Table IV.L-14, would range from a minimum of 0.2 dBA CNEL to a maximum of 2.4 dBA CNEL. With the exception of the roadway segments of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road located west of Coffee Road, noise level increases of less than 1.5 dBA CNEL would occur at all of the remaining study roadway segments. The minimum increase in noise levels of 0.2 dBA CNEL would occur at two roadway segments of Calloway Drive (i.e., south of Rosedale Highway and north of Brimhall Road) and the roadway segment of Brimhall Road (i.e., west of Calloway Drive), while the maximum increase in noise levels of 2.4 dBA CNEL would occur at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located east of Calloway Drive. As shown in Table IV.L-14, the proposed Project would, during the Project buildout year of 2035, increase local noise levels at the study roadway segment of Brimhall Road located west of Coffee Road such that the noise increase would exceed the City’s identified noise thresholds. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at this roadway segment, this impact would be significant. In terms of adjoining land uses, this significant impact would occur at the single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Brimhall Road located west of Coffee Road. While the increase in noise at Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, would be a significant impact under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter this increase would not be perceptible in the context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 3 CNEL are not audible in the context of the community noise environmen t. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-14 Predicted Future (Phase III -2035) Roadway Noise Levels Offsite Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Future (2035) Without Project b Future (2035) With Project (Phase III) Increase Significance Threshold c Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.6 67.9 0.3 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 68.1 68.3 0.2 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 68.4 68.6 0.2 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 69.2 69.6 0.4 1.5 No Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 65.8 66.0 0.2 1.5 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 62.8 65.2 2.4 3.0 No Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 65.3 67.0 1.7 1.5 Yes Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 75.9 77.2 1.3 1.5 No a The noise levels along the study roadway segments include a 5 dBA reduction where noise walls are located along road rightof-ways. b It should be noted that traffic noise level under the “Future (2035) Without Project” scenario would actually be lower than the existing (2009) traffic noise level at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive. The decrease in noise level at this roadway segment is primarily due to the proposed Westside Parkway improvement. This proposed east-west corridor, which would be partially completed by 2015, would take traffic off of some of the existing roadways and redistribute traffic in the Project area, thereby resulting in lower traffic volumes on some of the existing roadways in the Project area. c Based on the City’s noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. Land Use Compatibility In addition to examining the noise impacts of the proposed Project on off-site sensitive uses, the proposed residential, commercial, and office uses at the Project site are analyzed in terms of the City’s land use/noise compatibility standards. According to Table IV.L-4, the City of Bakersfield allows new residential and office/commercial buildings to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 and 77 dBA CNEL, respectively, given that these buildings are provided with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning. In addition, for transportation noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the City also sets a standard of 65 dBA CNEL at the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 outdoor-activity areas of residential uses. Interior noise levels within residential buildings due to outdoor sources must not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Future noise levels at the Project site would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on Brimhall Road and Coffee Road. Table IV.L-15, Future Project Perimeter Noise Exposure, presents the future traffic noise contours along these two roadways during the three development phases of the proposed Project (i.e., Phase I opening day at 2015, Phase II development at 2035, and Phase III development at 2035). As shown, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to Brimhall Road and the segment of Coffee Road located north of Brimhall Road would be within the lanes of those respective roadways during the Phase I opening day of the proposed Project in 2015. As such, impacts associated with land use/noise compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. In addition, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site office uses located adjacent to Coffee Road, south of Rosedale Highway, would be approximately 44 feet from the centerline of Coffee Road during the Phase I opening day in 2015. Based on the proposed site plan for the proposed Project, the nearest on-site office properties located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway would be at least 80 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Thus, the exterior noise standard of 77 dBA CNEL for office uses would not be exceeded for these proposed on-site office uses at the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. During the Phase II development year of 2035, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to Brimhall Road would be within the lanes of this roadway and would not reach the property line of the Project site. As such, impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. In addition, the distance from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road, would be approximately 61 feet from the centerline of that roadway. Based on the proposed Project site plan, the nearest on-site commercial and office properties located adjacent to this segment of Coffee Road would be at least 90 feet from the centerline of this roadway. As such, the impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed commercial and office uses at the Project site would be less than significant. Furthermore, as discussed previously, the nearest on-site office properties located adjacent to the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway would be at least 80 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Thus, these proposed office properties would be located beyond the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour, which, as shown in Table IV.L-15, is approximately 56 feet away from the centerline of Coffee Road. Therefore, the impacts for these proposed office uses would also be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-15 Future Project Perimeter Noise Exposure Roadway Segment Proposed On-site Land Uses Reference CNEL at 100 feet a Distance to Noise Contour (feet) b 77 dBA CNEL 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL Phase I Opening Day (2015) Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Commercial/Office 67.5 -56 178 Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Commercial/Office 73.4 -220 695 Coffee Road, south of Rosedale Highway Office 73.4 44 221 698 Phase II Development (2035) Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Commercial/Office 69.2 -83 263 Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Commercial/Office 74.9 61 306 967 Coffee Road, south of Rosedale Highway Commercial/Office 74.5 56 281 888 Phase III Development (2035) Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 67.6 -57 180 Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Commercial/Office 69.4 -86 273 Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Commercial/Office 74.9 62 312 986 Coffee Road, south of Rosedale Highway Commercial/Office 74.6 57 287 908 Note: “-“ = contour is located within the roadway lanes. a The identified noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only as a point from which to calculate the noise contour distances. It does not reflect an actual building location or potential impact location. b Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix Q, Noise Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. During the Phase III buildout year of 2035, the distance from the 70 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the proposed on-site residential uses located north of Brimhall Road would be 57 and 180 feet, respectively. Based on the proposed site plan for the proposed Project, the closest on-site residential properties fronting Brimhall Road could be located as close as approximately 109 feet north of the roadway. If the residential development constructed during the Project’s final phase occurs at this location, the exterior noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL for residential uses would not be exceeded and impacts would be less than significant. However, the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard for residential outdoor-activity areas would be exceeded if the proposed residential uses are built within 180 feet of Brimhall Road. If the proposed residential uses are built beyond 180 feet of Brimhall Road, the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard would not be exceeded. As it cannot be determined at this time exactly where the proposed residential uses would be developed in 2035 relative to Brimhall Road, it is assumed, for the purpose of a conservative analysis, that the Project’s residential uses may be located within 180 feet of Brimhall Road. As such, this impact would be significant. As for the remaining office uses that would be developed during Phase III III of the proposed Project, the distances from the 77 dBA CNEL noise contour for these uses would be approximately 62 feet from the centerline of the segment of Coffee Road located north of Brimhall Road, and 57 feet from the centerline City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 of the segment of Coffee Road located south of Rosedale Highway. As discussed above, the proposed on-site office uses would be located beyond these distances within the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with noise/land use compatibility for these proposed office uses that would be developed during Phase III of the proposed Project would be less than significant. On-site Non-Vehicular Noise As part of the proposed Project, development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail and theater uses, and 600,000 square feet of office uses is proposed at the Project site. The operation of these proposed commercial and office uses would generate noise levels that may affect the existing off-site residential uses. Noise sources associated with these uses, in particular the proposed commercial uses, may include rooftop mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans, loading operations, trash removal or compaction operations, truck deliveries, and noise generated by patrons of the proposed commercial uses. The operation of the proposed retail uses could generate noise levels at both the existing off-site residences that exceed the City’s noise standards for non-transportation noise sources. As part of the proposed Project, the requirements of Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which serves to reduce noise levels generated by large retail developments on sensitive receptors, have been incorporated as Project design features. Specifically, the design features of the proposed Project would prohibit the location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with large retail developments to be within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed with residential uses. In addition, other than trash removal by the City or its contractors, all loading, unloading, delivery, private refuse collection and related operations at the Project site would not be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. adjacent to any land zoned or developed with residential uses unless evidence is submitted to the City by the developer that sound mitigation would be implemented to reduce the noise generated by such operations to less than 3 dBA above the measured background noise level at the same period for any three continuous minutes in any hour during the operation as measured at the property line adjacent to the affected residential uses. The Project’s design features also require loading docks at the Project site to include separate walls for noise attenuation, if they are adjacent to residential areas, and requires that these walls be screened with landscaping so that they are not visible from residential areas or public streets. Furthermore, as part of the Project’s design features, trash pickup areas within the Project site are not allowed to be visible from public streets unless the enclosure areas are architecturally designed to match the design of the center. With implementation of the Project design features described above, noise levels generated by the delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with the proposed Project on the nearby off-site noise sensitive uses would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Railroad Noise Upon implementation of the proposed Project, the proposed residential uses on-site would be exposed to noise generated by freight and passenger trains on the BNSF Railway, which runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site while bisecting the eastern portion of the Project site. As discussed previously, it has been documented that the distance to the 65 dB CNEL contour from rail activity on the BNSF Railway in the City ranges from approximately 290 to 630 feet.10 Based on the proposed location of the on-site residential uses associated with the proposed Project, the nearest on-site residences would be located approximately 1,090 feet south of the BNSF Railway. Due to the distance from the railway, the exterior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City’s 65 dB CNEL standard for residential residential outdoor activity areas and the interior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City’s 45 dB CNEL standard for interior living spaces. Furthermore, based on the noise measurement that was taken onsite at the location where the nearest onsite residential uses to the railway would be located, an Leq value of 48.4 dBA was measured during a 15-minute span that included a freight train passing by the Project site. The freight train was the loudest source of noise during that noise measurement, with an Lmax value of 59.8 dBA representing the maximum instantaneous noise level that was experienced at the noise measurement location when the train passed by the Project site. Based on the data sources cited above, the exterior and interior areas of the proposed on-site residences would not be exposed to train noise that would exceed 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL, respectively. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Operational Groundborne Vibration The proposed Project, which includes upscale retail uses as well as theater, office and residential uses, would not include stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels. The main vibration sources would be on-site refuse/delivery truck activity and on-site loading dock/refuse collection area activity. However, the vibration levels generated by these activities are typically low and would be barely perceptible by the off-site residential uses. Generally in terms of groundborne vibration, the threshold of perception for humans is around 65 VdB, with human response to vibration not usually significant until the vibration exceeds 70 VdB.11 As discussed previously, trucks traveling along a roadway typically generate groundborne vibration levels of around 63 VdB at 50 feet, with vibration levels reaching approximately 72 VdB at 50 feet when trucks pass over bumps in the road. As the trucks accessing the Project site would be traveling on relatively smooth roadway surfaces and would be traveling at low speeds, it is not anticipated that any perceptible groundborne vibration levels would be experienced by the 10 City of Bakersfield, Rosedale Ranch Project (GPA/ZC #04-0671) Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, March 2005. 11 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 off-site residential uses. Furthermore, as the proposed commercial uses at the Project site would be required to comply with the design standards for large retail developments outlined in Section 17.08.140 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which prohibits the location of any delivery, loading, and solid waste operations within 30 feet of any properties zoned or developed with residential uses, the vibration levels generated by these on-site operations would not result in a substantial groundborne vibration impact on nearby sensitive uses. The proposed residential uses at the Project site would also be exposed to groundborne vibration generated by freight and passenger trains traveling on the BNSF Railway. As discussed previously, locomotive powered passenger and freight trains traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of up to 85 VdB at 50 feet from the railroad. Based on information from the FTA, a locomotive powered passenger and freight train traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate a groundborne vibration velocity level of 65 VdB, which is the typical threshold of perception for humans, at a distance slightly beyond 300 feet from the track centerline. As the nearest on-site residential uses would be located approximately 1,090 feet from the BNSF Railway, these residential uses would not be exposed to substantial groundborne vibration levels from the passenger and freight trains traveling on the railway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Project Impact Summary Overall, impacts associated with construction noise and vibration on off-site residential uses, railroad noise and vibration on the proposed on-site residential uses, and operational noise and vibration levels generated by the proposed commercial uses at the Project site on off-site residential uses would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts associated with an increase in roadway noise levels generated by the proposed Project would be significant at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive, during Phase I of the proposed Project, and at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, during both Phase II and Phase III of the proposed Project. In terms of noise impacts associated withland use/noise compatibility, it is concluded that a significant impact would occur for the Project’s residential uses. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the proposed Project. As noise is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed Project to result in cumulative noise impacts. Development of the proposed Project in combination with the the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would result in an increase in construction-related noise. Construction noise is localized in nature and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed Project. As shown in Figure III-6, Related Projects Map, the nearest related project to the proposed Project would be the Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers retail and office development project located approximately 0.2 miles away to the northwest. As construction noise levels decrease at the rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, noise levels at 1,000 feet from the Project site would be less than 60 dBA, assuming that there are no intervening structures which would serve as barriers to this noise level. With the presence of noise barriers, Project construction noise levels would be well below 60 dBA. Due to the distance between the proposed Project and this related project and the localized nature of noise, the cumulative construction noise levels would have a less than significant impact. Moreover, this less than significant cumulative impact would only occur if construction of this related project occurs at the same time as construction of the proposed Project. In addition, each of the related projects would be subject to Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which regulates noise from construction activities by limiting construction activities occurring within 1,000 feet from residential uses to the hours of 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends. With conformance with Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As mentioned above, the nearest related project to the Proposed Project would be the Crossroads retail development project located approximately 0.3 miles away to the east. The same conditions that are described above relative to construction noise also apply to groundborne vibration in that vibration levels drop off at such a relatively rapid rate that the proposed Project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other to affect the same noise-sensitive receptors. As an example, for a sensitive receptor that is located halfway between the proposed Project and the Crossroads retail development project, the composite vibration level associated with construction occurring concurrently at both sites would be approximately 43 VdB, which is substantially below the FTA threshold of 75 VdB for residential uses. Only receptors located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. Furthermore, it should be noted that there are currently no sensitive receptors that are located between these two sites. Therefore, as Project impacts are less than significant, cumulative impacts in terms of groundborne vibration would also be less than significant. Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed by comparing the future cumulative traffic volumes in the years 2015 (Phase I), 2035 (Phase II), and 2035 (Phase III) against the existing traffic volumes on the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with existing traffic volumes and cumulative base traffic volumes with the proposed Project (i.e., future cumulative traffic volumes) after the development of Phase I in year 2015 are identified in Table IV.L-16, Cumulative Project Roadway City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase I -2015). As shown therein, in 2015 after the Phase I development the increase in local noise levels over the existing traffic volumes at the study roadway segments would range from a minimum of -0.9 dBA CNEL, at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive, to a maximum of 1.0 dBA CNEL at the roadway segment of Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road. Noise level increases of less than 1.5 dBA CNEL would occur at all of the study roadway segments. Therefore, the cumulative impact associated with mobile source noise generated by cumulative development along with the proposed Project would be less than significant. It should be noted that traffic noise levels would actually be reduced at four of the identified roadway segments in Table IV.L-16 from cumulative traffic volumes in year 2015 (Phase I). The decrease in noise levels at these roadway segments is primarily due to the proposed Westside Parkway improvement.12 This proposed east-west corridor, which would be partially completed by 2015, would take traffic off of some of the existing roadways and redistribute traffic in the Project area, thereby resulting in lower traffic volumes on some of the existing roadways in the Project area. The noise levels associated with existing traffic volumes and cumulative base traffic volumes with the proposed Project after the development of Phase II in year 2035 are identified in Table IV.L-17, Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase II -2035). As shown therein, in 2035 after the Phase II development the increase in local noise levels over the existing traffic volumes at the study roadway segments would range from a minimum of 0.4 dBA CNEL, at the roadway segments of Brimhall Road, west and east of Calloway Drive, to a maximum of 2.3 dBA CNEL at the roadway segment of Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road. Of the eight study roadway segments that are analyzed, two would experience an increase in noise levels of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater. As shown in Table IV.L-17, cumulative development along with the proposed Project in 2035 with Phase II development would result in increases in roadway noise that would exceed the City’s noise standards for cumulative noise impacts at two of the eight analyzed roadway segments (i.e., Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road, and Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road). Thus, a cumulative noise impact would occur at the single-family residences fronting the roadway segment of Calloway Drive located south of Brimhall Road, as well as the one single-family residence that is located along the roadway segment of Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road. Therefore, the cumulative impact associated with mobile source noise generated by cumulative development along with the proposed Project would be significant. While the increases in noise at the two identified roadway segments would would be significant impacts under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would not be perceived in 12 The Westside Parkway is a four-to eight-lane local freeway that is proposed to extend from the intersection of Heath Road & Stockdale Highway to just west of the SR 99 freeway. It includes more than eight miles of freeway with four interchanges, all of which are within the Study Area, and several bridges that cross roads, canals, and the Kern River. The City of Bakersfield anticipates completion of construction by the year 2015 up to Mohawk Street. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 3 CNEL are not audible in the context of the community noise environment. It should be noted that the Project’s significant traffic noise impact at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, after development of Phase II in 2035 becomes a less-than-significant impact under cumulative traffic conditions due to the City’s thresholds for transportation noise impacts. Under the traffic noise analysis for the Project shown previously in Table IV.L-13, a noise increase of over 1.5 dBA CNEL would constitute a significant impact as the existing ambient noise level in year 2035 without the Project at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, is beyond 65 dBA CNEL. However, as the existing (2009) traffic noise level at this roadway segment is below 65 dBA CNEL, an increase of 3.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative and Project development would need to result before a significant noise impact occurs. With a cumulative noise increase of only 2.2 dBA CNEL at this roadway segment, the cumulative noise impact along this roadway segment would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-16 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase I -2015) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Existing (2009) Traffic Volumes Future (2015) With Project Traffic Volumes (Phase I) Cumulative Increase Significance Threshold b Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.8 66.9 0.1 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.4 67.2 (0.2) 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 67.7 67.3 (0.4) 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 67.3 68.3 1.0 1.5 No Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 65.6 64.8 (0.8) 1.5 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 64.6 63.7 (0.9) 3.0 No Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 64.6 65.1 0.5 3.0 No Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 75.0 75.7 0.7 1.5 No a Values represent noise levels at 75 feet from the centerline of each roadway. b Based on the City’s cumulative noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 5.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; an increase of 3.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-17 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase II -2035) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Existing (2009) Traffic Volumes Future (2035) With Project Traffic Volumes (Phase II) Cumulative Increase Significance Threshold b Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.8 67.9 1.1 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.4 68.3 0.9 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 67.7 68.6 0.9 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 67.3 69.6 2.3 1.5 Yes Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 65.6 66.0 0.4 1.5 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 64.6 65.0 0.4 3.0 No Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 64.6 66.8 2.2 3.0 No Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 75.0 77.1 2.1 1.5 Yes a Values represent noise levels at 75 feet from the centerline of each roadway. b Based on the City’s cumulative noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 5.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; an increase of 3.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The noise levels associated with existing traffic volumes and cumulative base traffic volumes with the proposed Project after the development of Phase III in year 2035 are identified in Table IV.L-18, Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase III -2035). As shown, in 2035 after Phase III development the increase in local noise levels over the existing traffic volumes at the study roadway segments would range from a minimum of 0.4 dBA CNEL, at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive, to a maximum of 2.4 dBA CNEL at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road. Of the eight study roadway segments that are analyzed, three would experience an increase in noise levels of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater. As shown in Table IV.L-18, cumulative development along with the proposed Project in 2035 after Phase III development would result in increases in roadway noise that would exceed the City’s noise standards for cumulative noise impacts at two of the eight analyzed roadway segments (i.e., Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road, and Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road). Thus, a cumulative noise impact would occur at the singlefamily residences fronting the roadway segment of Calloway Drive located south of Brimhall Road, as well as the one single-family residence that is located along the roadway segment of Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road. Therefore, the cumulative impact associated with mobile source noise generated by cumulative development along with the proposed Project would be significant. While the increases in noise at the two identified roadway segments would be significant impacts under the thresholds established in this document, as a practical matter these increases would not be perceived in the context of the community noise environment as noise level changes less than 3 CNEL are not audible in the context of the community noise environment. It should be noted that the Project’s significant traffic noise impact at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, after development of Phase III in 2035 becomes a less-than-significant impact under cumulative traffic conditions due to the City’s thresholds for transportation noise impacts. Under the traffic noise analysis for the Project shown previously in Table IV.L-14, a noise increase of over 1.5 dBA CNEL would constitute a significant impact as the existing ambient noise level in year 2035 without the Project at the roadway segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, is beyond 65 dBA CNEL. However, as the existing (2009) traffic noise level at this roadway segment is below 65 dBA CNEL, an increase of 3.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative and Project development would need to result before a significant noise impact occurs. With a cumulative noise increase of only 2.4 dBA CNEL at this roadway segment, the cumulative noise impact at this roadway would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.L-18 Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts With Proposed Project (Phase III -2035) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment Noise Levels in dBA CNEL a Existing (2009) Traffic Volumes Future (2035) With Project Traffic Volumes (Phase III) Cumulative Increase Significance Threshold b Significant? Calloway Drive, north of Rosedale Highway Residential 66.8 67.9 1.1 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Rosedale Highway Residential 67.4 68.3 0.9 1.5 No Calloway Drive, north of Brimhall Road Residential 67.7 68.6 0.9 1.5 No Calloway Drive, south of Brimhall Road Residential 67.3 69.6 2.3 1.5 Yes Brimhall Road, west of Calloway Drive Residential 65.6 66.0 0.4 1.5 No Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive Residential 64.6 65.2 0.6 3.0 No Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road Residential 64.6 67.0 2.4 3.0 No Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road Residential 75.0 77.2 2.2 1.5 Yes a Values represent noise levels at 75 feet from the centerline of each roadway. b Based on the City’s cumulative noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 5.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; an increase of 3.0 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; and an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater in noise levels associated with cumulative with project development would be significant if the existing ambient noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Traffic Information Source: Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., September 2009. Table Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, 2009. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended to address construction-related noise impacts, and operational-related related noise impacts: Construction L-1. Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 L-2. The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. L-3. Barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains a minimum of eight feet in height shall be erected along the Project site’s western, southern, and eastern boundary to minimize the amount of noise during construction on the surrounding off-site single-family residential uses. Operation L-4 With submission of a subdivision map on the proposed residential area, the Project Applicant shall submit an acoustical study to determine necessary design features or treatments for the proposed residential buildings or structures such that the intruding noise from roadway traffic on these noise-sensitive receptors are limited to 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. Treatments may include, but are not limited to, the following methods: 􀂃 Increasing the distance between the noise source and the residential use; 􀂃 Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; 􀂃 Orienting buildings to shield outdoor activity areas from a noise source; 􀂃 Locating noise-sensitive living spaces such as bedrooms and balconies away from noise sources; 􀂃 Erect a noise wall between the residential use and the noise source; and 􀂃 Constructing all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential structures at the Project site with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction that provides a Sound Transmission Class of 50 or greater as defined in the California Building Code (CBC). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project’s impact associated with construction-related noise and groundborne vibration would be less than significant without mitigation. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3, which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction at the Project site, would serve to further reduce the noise and vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed Project to the maximum extent feasible. Implementation of the proposed Project design features requires the Project Applicant to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design any necessary treatments for the proposed on-site commercial and office uses to ensure that nearby off-site residences would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 dB City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.L. Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.L-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces. With the implementation of this Project design feature, noise levels generated by the proposed commercial and office uses on the existing off-site residential uses would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure L-4, which would require the Project Applicant to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design any necessary treatments for the proposed on-site residential uses such that the intruding noise from roadway traffic on these noise-sensitive receptors are limited to 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB CNEL within interior living spaces, would reduce the noise impacts on the proposed onsite residential uses to a less-than-significant level. In terms of increases in traffic noise levels at off-site noise-sensitive receptors, there is currently no feasible mitigation to reduce these noise impacts as they are generated by the increase in traffic trips associated with the proposed Project as well as those associated with the other related projects in the City. As such, the project-specific noise impact associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to increases in traffic at the identified roadway segments in years 2015 after Phase I development, 2035 after Phase II development, and 2035 after Phase II development would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, while the cumulative noise impact associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to increases in traffic at the identified roadway segments in year 2015 after Phase I development would be less than significant, the cumulative noise impacts at the identified roadway segments in year 2035 after Phase II development and 2035 after Phase III development would be significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the roadway segments where Project-specific noise impacts and cumulative noise impacts occur are different due to the proposed Westside Parkway improvement, which is an east-west corridor that would result in the redistribution of traffic in the Project area, as well as the City’s thresholds for transportation noise impacts.13 The impact of railroad noise and groundborne vibration generated by freight and passenger trains on the BNSF railway on the proposed residential uses at the Project site would be less than significant without mitigation. 13 Based on the City’s noise standards for mobile sources, an increase of 3.0 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL, while an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater in noise levels associated with a project would be significant if the existing ambient noise level without the project is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, because the existing ambient noise levels that are used under the Project-specific and cumulative noise impact analyzes are different, the applicable incremental noise increase threshold may be different for the two analysis scenarios, which may subsequently result in traffic noise impacts at different locations under the Projectspecific and cumulative traffic noise analysis scenarios. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population & Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS M. POPULATION & HOUSING INTRODUCTION This Section addresses the following: (1) the potential of the proposed Project to create population and/or housing growth outside of the proposed Project site due to the introduction of the proposed Project’s new housing units or new jobs; (2) the degree to which the proposed Project would cause growth in comparison to adopted population and housing growth forecasts and allocations; and (3) the consistency of the proposed Project with adopted regional and local policies, including the housing need allocation, which outlines the number of housing units needed at specified income levels based upon growth trends and income characteristics for the region. In addition, the potential cumulative population and housing impacts of the proposed Project in combination with related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR, in the proposed Project area is evaluated in this Section. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Housing and Population The proposed Project site is primarily vacant with the exception of limited office and trucking uses and does not contain any existing housing or residents. Regulatory Framework The proposed Project site is located within the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (the “City”) in the County of Kern (the “County”). As such, relevant population and housing policies and regulations relevant to this analysis include the State Housing Element Law administered by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Department of Finance, the Kern Council of Governments’ (Kern COG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan (RHNAAP), and the City’s Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), including the Housing Element. State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) The HCD is responsible for ensuring that all counties in the State share a portion of the Department of Finance’s projected population growth based on population projections and historic growth trends. The City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 HCD provides regional housing need assessments for regional councils of governments. The share of regional housing needs are allocated in five-year cycles so that the cities and counties can amend the housing elements of their general plans, as required by the State Housing Element Law approximately every five years. The HCD also provides an advisory role to local jurisdictions in the preparation of their housing elements. Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Kern COG, the County’s regional council of governments. The Kern COG works in conjunction with the County and the 11 incorporated cities within the County to develop regional housing needs that will accommodate the housing allocated by the State HCD. The Kern COG then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of the cities and counties within its region on an approximate five-year schedule. The proposed Project site is located within Kern COG’s Southern San Joaquin Planning area, which occupies approximately 960 square miles in the south-central portion of Kern County and includes the cities of Bakersfield and Arvin, as well as seven unincorporated communities. Kern COG’s most recent RHNAAP was adopted in June 2007 and addresses the planning period of 2006 to 2013. Housing allocation set forth in the RHNAAP for the County and City, respectively, are provided in Tables IV.M-2 and IV.M-3 later in this Section. City of Bakersfield As discussed above, State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that accounts for future growth, which is addressed in part by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan’s Housing Element. Typically, housing elements are revised on a five-year schedule to reflect the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and/or the Regional Housing Allocation Plan (RHAP) released for that period. The City’s MBGP addresses community development goals and policies relative to housing through the City’s 2008 – 2013 Housing Element, which was adopted February 25, 2009. The current Housing Element sets forth the following five broad housing goals for the City: • To provide housing opportunities and accessibility for all economic segments of the City; • To provide and maintain an adequate supply of sites for the development of affordable new housing; • To preserve, rehabilitate, and enhance existing housing and neighborhoods; • To ensure that all housing programs are available without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, or any other arbitrary factor; and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • To encourage and enhance intergovernmental, public, and private coordination and cooperation to achieve an adequate supply of housing for all economic and social segments of the community. The Housing Element provides a number of housing objectives, and policies that act to implement each of the above-listed goals and provide for the housing needs of the City’s growing and existing population. Housing policies are intended to create an adequate supply of housing for all City residents as well as to enhance the existing housing supply, with a particular emphasis on affordable housing opportunities. Those housing policies that are applicable to the proposed Project are discussed in more detail in Table IV.L-M later in this Section. Population and Housing Projections Population projections applicable to the County and City are provided by the Kern COG and the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Housing allocation for the County and City are provided by Kern COG as part of the RHNAAP. Population Projections County of Kern In 2000, the County population was 665,519 persons. The expected population in the County by 2010 is 871,728 persons. This represents an increase of 206,209 persons, or approximately 31 percent, from the 2000 County population.1 This growth rate is relatively high as compared to the overall growth rate for the State of California for that period (i.e., 15 percent). However, it is within the same range as the 2000 and 2010 growth rate projected for several adjacent and nearby central and southern California counties, including San Bernardino County (i.e., 27 percent), Tulare County (i.e., 26 percent), and Kings County (i.e., 26 percent).2 3 The most recent population data available (i.e., January 2009) indicates that the population of the County is approximately 827,173 persons, which is consistent with the projections for 1 State of California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and its Counties 2000-2050, July 2007, website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/P3/P3.php, accessed May 19, 2009. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the 2000 to 2010 period.4 Population projections for the County are shown in Table IV.M-1, City and County Population Forecasts and Extrapolated Housing Projections. As shown, County population is projected to reach 1,036,857 in 2015 and 1,872,679 in 2035. City of Bakersfield According to the City’s Housing Element, the City’s population in 2000 was 247,057.5 The City’s estimated population for 2010 is 339,000 persons.6 This represents an increase of approximately 91,943 persons, or a 37 percent increase, from the 2000 City population. Population data indicates that the population of the City was approximately 323,213 persons in 2007, which is consistent with the projections for the 2000 to 2010 period.7 The expected population in the City by 2015 is 419,171 persons, an increase of 95,958 persons or a 30 percent increase from the 2007 population. For 2035, the estimated population is 664,502 persons, an increase of 245,331 persons or a 59 percent increase from the 2015 estimate (see Table IV.M-1).8 4 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated January 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, accessed May 19, 2009. 5 City of Bakersfield, Housing Element of the General Plan, 2008 -2013, adopted February 25, 2009. 6 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population and Area, updated May 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersfie ldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, May 19, 2009. 7 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population and Area, updated May 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, May 19, 2009. 8 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population Predictions (Values in Thousands) – Linear Regression Model, May 31, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-1 County and City Population Forecasts and Extrapolated Housing Projections Jurisdiction/Year Population (persons) Change (persons) Housing Units (du) Change (du) City of Bakersfield a, c 2000 247,057 --88,266 --2007 323,213 +76,156 112,106 +23,840 2015 419,171 +95,958 140,088 +27,982 2035 664,502 +245,331 221,130 +81,042 County of Kern b, c 2000 665,519 --231,567 --2007 801,648 +136,129 270,616 +39,049 2015 1,036,857 +235,209 318,275 +47,659 2035 1,872,679 +835,822 446,927 +128,652 a Population in 2000 provided by: City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, 2008 -2013 Housing Element, adopted February 25, 2009. Population projections provided by: City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population Predictions (Values in Thousands) – Linear Regression Model, May 31, 2007. b County population data for 2000 provided by the State of California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and its Counties 2000-2050, July 2007, website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/P3/P3.php, accessed May 19, 2009. c Housing projections for the County and City are extrapolated based upon an average annual housing growth rate of approximately 2.3 percent in the County and an average annual growth rate of approximately 3.5 percent in the City between 2000 and 2007. Population and number of housing units in the County and City in 2000 and 2007 provided by: Kern Council of Governments, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated April 1, 2000 and January 1, 2007, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/e5-2000-2007.pdf, accessed June 15, 2009. County population projections for 2015 and 2035 are based on a 3 percent annual growth rate. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, October 2009. Housing Allocations and Projections County of Kern Housing Allocation The Kern COG’s RHNAAP allocates the number of housing needed at each income level in the County based upon the past decade of growth in the region and the number of households in the County classified City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 as Very Low income, Low Income, and Moderate or Above Moderate Income by the State.9 Table IV.M-2, RHNAAP Housing Allocation for County, sets forth the number of new housing units expected to be needed in the County between 2006 and 2013. Table IV.M-2 RHNAAP Housing Allocation for County Income Level Housing Allocation (du) Very Low Income 10,124 Low Income 6,875 Moderate Income 7,579 Above Moderate Income 17,062 Total 41,640 Note: du = dwelling unit. Source: Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007; Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2007. As shown in Table IV.M-2, the current RHNAAP recommends that the County plan for 41,640 additional dwelling units between 2006 and 2013, of which approximately 41 percent (16,999 units) are targeted to be either Low or Very Low Income. The number of housing units in the County in 2006 was approximately 262,932.10 Therefore, if all 41,640 housing units allocated for the County in the current RHNAAP were constructed, the total number of housing units in the County by 2013 would increase to approximately 304,574 units. The average household size in the County in 2000 was 2.81 persons and in 2006 was 3.13 persons.11 9 Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, May 19, 2009. A four-person family with an income at or below 50 percent of the median family income of the County is considered Very Low Income; a four-person family with an income from 50 to 80 percent of the median family income for the County is considered Low Income, a four-person family with an income between 80 and 120 percent of the median family income for the County is considered Moderate Income, and a four-person family with an income 120 percent of the median family income for the County is considered Above Moderate Income. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Kern County had a median family income of $38,700 in 2000. 10 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated January 1, 2006, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, April 11, 2007. 11 Average County household size for 2000 and 2006: City of Bakersfield, Housing Element of the General Plan, 2008 -2013, adopted February 25, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Housing Projection – County While the Kern COG does not provide housing projections for the County, for discussion purposes, a forecast of the expected increase in housing within Kern County in the upcoming years has been made, based upon the growth rate between 2000 and 2007. In 2000, the number of housing units in the County was 231,567, increasing to approximately 270,616 housing units or a 39,049-unit increase by 2007.12 This represents an approximate 2.3 percent annual increase over this seven-year period. Therefore, extrapolating this annual housing growth rate would yield an increase in housing of approximately 47,659 housing units between 2007 and 2015 and 128,652 housing units between 2015 and 2035 (see Table IV.M-1). Nonetheless, while these extrapolations are useful in providing a general understanding of housing growth in the County, they do do not represent adopted housing forecasts of the Kern COG or another government agency. City of Bakersfield Housing Allocation According to the RHNAAP, the City of Bakersfield was the fastest growing jurisdiction in the County between 1990 and 2000, with both population and housing growth rates of approximately 36 percent which represented 46 percent of the County’s growth over the decade. Additionally, between 2000 and 2006, the City of Bakersfield accounted for 64 percent of new housing and 65 percent of new households in the County. Table IV.M-3, RHNAAP Housing Allocation for City, sets forth the number of new housing units at each income level expected to be needed in the City between 2006 and 2013, based upon the past decade of growth in the region and the number of households in the City classified as Very Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income, or Above Moderate Income by the State.13 12 Kern Council of Governments, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated April 1, 2000, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/e5-2000-2007.pdf, accessed June 15, 2009. 13 Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-3 RHNAAP Housing Allocation for City Income Level Housing Allocation (du) Very Low Income 6,626 Low Income 4,500 Moderate Income 4,960 Above Moderate Income 11,166 Total 27,252 Note: du = dwelling unit. Source: Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, 2001, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007; Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2007. As shown in Table IV.M-3, the current RHNAAP recommends that the City plan for 27,252 additional dwelling units between 2006 and 2013, of which approximately 41 percent are recommended to be either Low or Very Low Income. The number of housing units in the City in 2006 was approximately 108,242. Therefore, if all 27,252 housing units allocated for the City in the current RHNAAP were constructed, the total total number of housing units in the City by 2013 would be approximately 135,494 units. The average household size in the City in 2000 was 2.95 persons and in 2006, the average household size in the City was 2.99 persons.14 Housing Projection – City While the City Planning Department does not provide housing projections for the City, for discussion purposes, a forecast of the expected increase in housing within the City in the upcoming years has been made, based upon the growth rate between 2000 and 2007. In 2000, the number of housing units in the City was 88,266, increasing to approximately 112,106 housing units or a 23,840-unit increase by 2007.15 This represents an approximate 3.5-percent annual increase over this seven-year period. Therefore, extrapolating this annual housing growth would yield an increase in housing of approximately 27,982 housing units between 2007 and 2015 and 81,042 housing units between 2015 and 2035 (see Table IV.M-1). Nonetheless, while these extrapolations are useful in providing a general understanding of housing 14 Average City household size for 2000 and 2006: City of Bakersfield, Housing Element of the General Plan, 2008 -2013, adopted February 25, 2009. 15 Kern Council of Governments, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated April 1, 2000, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/e5-2000-2007.pdf, accessed June 15, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 growth, they do not represent adopted housing forecasts of the City Planning Department, Kern COG, or another government agency. Jobs-Housing Balance Between 1990 and 2000, employment in the Southern San Joaquin Planning Area (which includes Greater Bakersfield) rose from approximately 146,923 to 160,473 jobs, an increase of nine percent.16 Meanwhile, both population and housing in the City grew by approximately 36 percent during that same period. Based on data provided as part of Kern COG’s RHNAAP, the City provided approximately 102,001 jobs and 83,601 households in 2000, resulting in a jobs-to-housing ratio of approximately1.22. The County, as a whole, provided approximately 232,461 jobs and 208,786 households, resulting in approximately 1.11 jobs per household for that year.17 Therefore, both the City and the County currently provide just over one job per home. With respect to the future jobs-housing balance, employment in the Southern San Joaquin Planning Area is expected to rise by approximately 128 percent between 2000 and 2020.18 Meanwhile, housing projections extrapolated for the City between 2000 (88,266 units) and 2020 (161,286 units) show a potential increase in housing units of approximately 83 percent, while population projections provided by the City predict an increase in population of 94 percent during the same period (population of 247,057 in 2000 and 480,503 in 2020). As a result, under future conditions, the City is anticipated to maintain a ratio of jobs to housing of over one job per home. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology The environmental impacts of the proposed Project with respect to population and housing growth are determined based on the expected population and housing growth associated with the proposed Project as compared to planned growth estimates and population projections for the City and Kern County. 16 Kern Council of Governments, 2001 Regional Housing Allocation Plan, adopted May 17, 2001, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007. 17 Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007. 18 Kern Council of Governments, 2001 Regional Housing Allocation Plan, adopted May 17, 2001, website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf, July 9, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact to population and/or housing if it were to result in one or more of the following: (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); (b) Be inconsistent with the housing needs assessment for the area; (c) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; (d) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or (e) Conflict with the goals, objectives, policies and programs set forth in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. As discussed in the Initial Study that was prepared in support of the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study, of this Draft EIR), there would be no impact with respect to thresholds (c) and (d) listed above (see also Section IV.A, Land Use Planning, of this Draft EIR). Therefore, only thresholds (a), (b) and (e) need to be addressed in the following analysis. Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to population and housing. Project Impacts Construction-Related Growth The development of the proposed Project would result in increased employment opportunities during its approximately 25-year construction period. However, construction-related employment opportunities would not likely result in household relocation by construction workers to the vicinity of the proposed Project site for various reasons, including the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Construction employment has no regular place of business; rather, construction workers commute to job sites that may change several times a year. • Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g., crane operators, steel workers, masons) and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand for their skills. • The work requirements of most construction projects are also highly specialized, and workers are employed on a job site only as long as their skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. • Construction workers would likely be drawn from the construction employment labor force already present in Bakersfield and the surrounding communities. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction workers would relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population or housing growth as a result of the proposed Project’s construction phase and no impact would occur during construction. Population Growth Direct Population Growth Based on the 2007 average household size for the City (i.e., 3.02 persons per household), the 425 proposed residential units would directly introduce a total of approximately 1,284 new permanent residents to the proposed Project area by 2035. It is likely that some of the existing residents in the City would relocate their place of residence to the proposed Project. However, for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all of the permanent residents generated by the construction of the proposed residential component of the proposed Project would be new to the City. Indirect Population Growth In addition to the new residents associated with the proposed residential uses, the demolition of the 7,600 square feet of existing office uses and the new construction of 1,400,000 square feet of retail/theatre space and 600,000 square feet of office space would create 5,169 (net) new jobs, assuming a reduction of approximately 31 jobs associated with the existing uses (see Table IV.M-4, Proposed Population Generation, below). These jobs would be filled by residents who either: (1) live in the residences constructed as part of the proposed Project, (2) already reside in the City (3) commute to the City, or (4) relocate to the City. For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that 100 percent of the new employees, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 approximately 5,169 individuals would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the proposed Project site. Based on an average household size of 3.02 persons, the proposed Project would indirectly increase the City’s population by approximately 15,611 individuals in association with the proposed nonresidential uses. As shown in Table IV.M-4, assuming a conservative analysis, the proposed Project’s net increase in indirect employee-related population plus the direct increase in housing-related population would result in a net increase of approximately 16,895 new persons in the City. Nonetheless, as the proposed Project would be constructed in phases, the anticipated employee-and housing-related population increases would also occur in phases. Therefore, and based on the proposed phasing plan, the proposed Project would increase the population of the City by approximately 7,248 new persons by 2015 and an additional 9,647 new persons between 2015 and 2035. The analysis assumes all demolition would occur as part of the second phase of project construction. Table IV.M-4 Proposed Population Generation Land Use/Completion Year Size (unit) Population Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Employee Relocation Factor (percent) b Population Generation Factor (persons/household) c Population (persons) Existing Office 7,600 sf 4.04 100% 3.02 93 Existing Employee-Related Population 93 Proposed Retail/Theatre Phase I (2015) 800,000 sf 2.0 100% 3.02 4,832 Phase II (2035) 600,000 sf 3,624 Phase III (2035) ----Total 1,400,000 sf 8,456 Office Phase I (2015) 200,000 sf 4.0 100% 3.02 2,416 Phase II (2035) 200,000 sf 2,416 Phase III (2035) 200,000 sf 2,416 Total 600,000 sf 7,248 Proposed Employee-Related Population 15,704 Less Existing Employee-Related Population 93 Net Proposed Employee-Related Population 15,611 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-4 Proposed Population Generation Land Use/Completion Year Size (unit) Population Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Employee Relocation Factor (percent) b Population Generation Factor (persons/household) c Population (persons) Housing Phase I (2015) ------3.02 --Phase II (2035) ----Phase III (2035) 425 du 1,284 Total 425 du 1,284 Proposed Housing-Related Population 1,284 Total Proposed Project Population 16,895 d (Increase by Phase I, 2015) 7,248 e (Increase by Phase II, 2035) 5,947 f (Increase by Phase III, 2035) 3,700 g Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling unit. a Based on data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. b This analysis conservatively assumes that 10 percent of all new Project employees would relocate to the City as a result of the proposed Project and would not live in the proposed Project residences. This analysis also assumes that each new Project employee would generate a new household of 3.02 persons. c City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated January 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersf ieldcity.us/cityservices /devsrv/pdfs/Population_Housing_Data.pdf, May 19, 2009. This analysis conservatively assumes that each new Project employee would generate a new household of 3.02 persons. Therefore, each new employee that would relocate to the City as a result of the proposed Project would introduce 3.02 new City residents. d Sum of net proposed employee-related population plus proposed housing-related population. e Sum of retail/theatre-and office-related population increases anticipated to occur under Phase I (2015). f Sum of retail/theatre-and office-related population increases anticipated to occur under Phase II (2035), minus existing office-related population. g Sum of office-and housing-related population increases anticipated to occur under Phase III(2035). Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 2009. Table IV.M-5, Comparison of Proposed Population Generation to City and County Forecasts, compares the population generation associated with the proposed Project, based on the proposed phasing, to the population growth forecasts provided by the City Planning Department through 2035. As shown in Table IV.M-5, the first phase of the proposed Project would provide approximately nine percent of the population growth that is forecasted in the City between 2010 and 2015. The second and third phases of the proposed Project would provide approximately four percent of the population growth that is forecasted in the City between 2015 and 2035. Because the City of Bakersfield comprises a large portion of the population of Kern County, the three project phases are also compared to growth forecasts for the County provided by the Kern COG. As is shown in Table IV.M-5, the proposed Project would provide approximately four percent of the population growth that is forecasted in the County between 2010 and 2020 and approximately one percent of the population growth that is forecasted in the County between City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 2015 and 2035. As such, the population growth associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the forecasts of the City Planning Department as well as the Kern COG, and the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly at the City or County level. Furthermore, this population increase is based on a worst-case scenario assumption that 100 percent of the proposed new employees would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the proposed Project site. However, it is likely that many jobs would be filled by residents who live in the residences constructed as part of the proposed Project or by residents who already reside in the City or commute to the City and that the number of persons relocating to the City as a result of the proposed Project would be limited. Table IV.M-5 Comparison of Proposed Population Generation to City Forecasts Projection Year Population Forecast (persons) Population Increase from Previous Forecast Proposed Project Population (persons) Percentage of Projected Growth City Population Growth Forecasts a 2010 339,000 ------2015 419,171 +80,171 7,248 9.04% 2035 664,502 +245,331 9,647 d 3.93% County Population Growth Forecasts b 2010 871,728 ------2015 1,036,857 +165,129 7,248 c 4.34% 2035 1,872,679 +835,822 9,647 d 1.15% a City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population Predictions (Values in Thousands) – Linear Regression Model, May 31, 2007. b State of California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and its Counties 2000-2050, July 2007, website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/D EMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/P3/P3.php, accessed May 19, 2009. c Although completion of the First Phase of the proposed Project would occur by approximately 2015, County population growth forecasts for the year 2020 are used for comparison. d Final Project Buildout including the Second and Third Phases. Although completion of the Final Project Buildout would not occur until approximately 2035, County population growth forecasts for the year 2040 are used for comparison. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 2009. Housing Growth As discussed above, the proposed Project would construct 425 residential units by 2035. As the City Planning Department does not provide housing forecasts, the proposed Project is compared to the housing need allocation set forth in Kern COG’s RHNAAP and applicable policies provided in the Housing Element of the MBGP. Extrapolated housing projections for the City and County are also provided for comparative purposes. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Kern COG Housing Allocations As shown in Tables IV.M-2 and IV.M-3 previously in this Section, the current RHNAAP recommends that the City plan for 27,252 additional dwelling units between 2006 and 2013, and that a total of 41,640 additional dwelling units are constructed throughout the County during that period. Approximately 41 percent of the new units constructed within the City and County are recommended to be for either Low or Very Low Income families. Therefore, it is expected that the 425 housing units proposed at project buildout (i.e., 2035) would assist both the City and the County in achieving their overall housing allocations set forth in future updates to the RHNAAP. The proposed Project does not include an affordable housing component and, as such, would not assist the City or County in meeting their respective Low and Very Low income housing allocations. Nonetheless, the current RHNAAP allocates approximately 59 percent of housing units at the City and County level to Moderate and Above Moderate incomes. Assuming that similar ratios are carried into future updates to the RHNAAP, the proposed Project would increase the overall housing supply, including housing for Moderate and Above Moderate incomes, which compose the majority of housing allocated, and as such would be considered to be substantially consistent with the RHNAAP. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the current RHNAAP and the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial housing growth. Further, the proposed Project would provide 12 jobs per dwelling unit (5,169 net new jobs divided by 425 dwelling units), which will further General Plan goals. City MBGP and Housing Element Table IV.M-6, Comparison of the Proposed Project to Applicable MBGP Housing Element Policy, provides a comparison of the proposed Project to specific housing objectives and policies set forth in the Housing Element of the MBGP, which are aimed to assist the City in achieving the housing allocation set forth by Kern COG in the current RHNAAP. As shown, the proposed Project would provide an attractive mixed-use community with a variety of new housing types as well as new employment opportunities that would meet and/or implement policies relevant to population and housing set forth in the MBGP’s Housing Element. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with City housing policy and would not induce substantial housing growth. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population & Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-6 Comparison of Proposed Project to Applicable MBGP Housing Element Policy Housing Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Analysis of Consistency Goal 1: It is the goal of the City of Bakersfield to concentrate its efforts to increase the availability of permanent housing for all economic segments in the City. Consistent: The proposed Project would include a variety of housing choices, including approximately 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family townhouse units that would be constructed in accordance with market demand over an approximate 25-year period. Objective 1-3: Provide home ownership opportunities whenever possible. Consistent: The proposed Project would include a variety of housing choices, which are anticipated to include both rental and home ownership opportunities. Objective 1-6: Provide the citizens in the City of of Bakersfield with reasonably priced housing opportunities within the financial capacity of all social and economic segments of the community. Substantially Consistent: The proposed Project would include a variety of housing choices, including approximately 80 single-family detached units and 345 multi-family townhouse units that would be constructed in accordance with market demand over an approximate 25-year period. The proposed Project will provide market rate units available at a range of prices and income levels. Thus, the proposed Project would assist meeting future housing goals by increasing the available supply of housing and by providing new housing, integrated within a larger mixed-use project. Objective 2-2: Provide opportunities for mix-use developments. Consistent: The proposed Project would provide a new mixed-use community offering retail, office, and residential development. Policy 2-2-1: To ensure the development of housing that has, to the extent possible, a support structure of shopping, services, and jobs within easy access. Consistent: The proposed Project would add new housing in proximity to new shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities within the on-site retail, theatre, and office uses proposed. Program: Encourage development of well-planned and designed projects that provides for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistent: The proposed Project would provide a well-planned and designed mixed-use community that would combine residential and commercial uses within a single project. The proposed Project would provide new residential opportunities within walking distance of the new shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities proposed to occur at the proposed Project site. Further, the proposed Project would provide 12 jobs per dwelling unit, which will further General Plan goals. Goal 4: It is the goal of the City of Bakersfield to ensure that all existing and future housing opportunities are open and available to all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, or any other arbitrary factors. Consistent: The proposed Project would provide new housing available to all future eligible homeowners and/or tenants consistent with federal and State law. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-6 Comparison of Proposed Project to Applicable MBGP Housing Element Policy Housing Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Analysis of Consistency Objective 6-1: Achieve a jobs/housing balance. Consistent: While the jobs/housing balance is intended to be addressed at the City or regional level, the proposed Project would assist the City in achieving this balance by providing approximately 5,170 net new jobs and 425 new housing units. By providing a substantial number of new job opportunities along with a moderate supply of new housing, the proposed Project would not only provide adequate jobs to employ future Project residents, but may provide a surplus of jobs to potentially employ existing and future residents in the surrounding community.a Further, the proposed Project would provide 12 jobs per dwelling unit, which will further General Plan goals. Policy 6-1-2: Consider the effects of new employment, particularly in relation to housing demands, when new commercial or industrial development is proposed. Consistent: This Population and Housing section addresses indirect employee-related population growth generated by the 2,000,000 square feet of commercial office and retail proposed. The new housing would also be available to future Project site employees, reducing future commutes associated with the proposed Project. a Employee generation = 4.0 employees/1,000 sf office and 2.0 employees/1,000 sf retail and theater uses. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. Source: City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, 2008 – 2013 Housing Element, adopted February 25, 2009; Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, May 2009. Housing Projections While the Kern COG and City Planning Department do not provide housing growth projections for the City or County, based on an extrapolated growth rate from current (i.e., 2000 to 2007) housing data, it is estimated that the City would yield an increase in housing of approximately 27,982 housing units between 2007 and 2015 and 81,042 housing units between 2015 and 2035. Likewise, it is estimated that the County will experience an increase of approximately 47,659 housing units between 2007 and 2015 and 128,652 housing units between 2015 and 2035 (see Table IV.M-1). The proposed Project’s increase of 425 housing units by approximately 2035 would be well within extrapolated County projections for the 2015 to 2035 period. Therefore, while these extrapolations do not represent adopted housing forecasts of the Kern COG, City Planning Department, or other government agency, they demonstrate that the proposed Project would not be considered to induce substantial housing growth at either a City or County level. Overall, the proposed Project’s impacts respect to substantial housing growth would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Jobs-Housing Balance As discussed previously, data for both the City and the County indicate that within both these jurisdictions there is just over one job per home, with jobs-to-housing ratios as of 2000 of approximately 1.22 and 1.11, respectively. Furthermore, based on available population and employment projections as well as extrapolated housing data, the City is anticipated to maintain a ratio of jobs to housing of over one job per home in the coming years. The proposed Project, which would create a substantial number of new job opportunities, as well as a moderate supply of new housing, would not only provide job opportunities for future Project residents, but would also provide a large number of job opportunities for the existing and future residents in the surrounding community. This would assist the City in maintaining the existing and future jobs-housing balance. This is very desirable from a broader community perspective because by providing employment centers in close proximity to homes, the need for long commutes to work, as well as to shop and fulfill other needs, is greatly reduced. As described in Table IV.M-6, the mixed-use design would encourage Project residents to walk and bike to the future shopping, entertainment, and office uses included as part of the proposed Project. Therefore, by maintaining the local jobs-housing balance, the proposed Project would also help implement regional and local policies related to trip reduction, air quality, and related policies set forth in such planning documents as the San Joaquin Valley Partnership’s (SJVP) Kern Regional Blueprint Project, and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), and the City’s General Plan. (See Section IV.A, Land Use, for further discussion of relevant policies that would be implemented under the proposed Project.) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As discussed in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR, there are 85 current and potential future “related projects” listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Of these 85 related projects, 30 are residential (i.e., Related Project Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, 33, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 52, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 85), 16 have both residential and non-residential components (i.e., Related Project Nos. 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 65), and 39 are nonresidential (i.e., Related Project Nos. 1, 4, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 36, 39, 40, 45, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74). As shown in Table IV.M-7, Projected Cumulative Population Growth, based on the conservative assumption that all residents, employees, and their associated families would be new to the City, the 85 related projects would contribute approximately 223,529 new permanent residents (indirect and direct) to the City. Therefore, the proposed Project combined with the 85 related projects would cumulatively contribute approximately 240,424 residents to the City by 2035. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population & Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth No. Project Description Size Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Generation Rate (residents/du) b Population (persons) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 2.0 -860 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du -3.02 3,642 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du -3.02 3,407 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 4.0 -261 5* Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du -3.02 3,926 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 2.0 -130 Single Family 1,280 du -3.02 3,866 Multi-Family 120 du -3.02 362 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du -3.02 3,050 Multi Family 2,562 du -3.02 7,737 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 4.0 -3,767 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du -3.02 960 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du -3.02 3.02 695 Light Industrial 41 ac ---10* Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du -3.02 906 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac ---Retail 402,930 sf 2.0 -806 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du -3.02 997 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du -3.02 495 Retail 95,000 sf 2.0 -190 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du -3.02 604 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du -3.02 1,057 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du -3.02 13,324 Multi-Family 326 du -3.02 985 Retail 501,000 sf 2.0 -1,002 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 4.0 -12,672 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 2.0 -2,000 Hotel 300 rooms ---19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac --- City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth No. Project Description Size Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Generation Rate (residents/du) b Population (persons) 20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du -3.02 33 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac ---22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 2.0 -472 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 2.0 -930 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 2.0 -1,253 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 2.0 -1,400 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 2.0 -3,000 Single Family 9,000 du -3.02 27,180 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 2.0 -2,800 Single Family 4,871 du -3.02 14,710 Multi Family 5,541 du -3.02 16,734 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 4.0 -5,009 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 2.0 -1,372 Office 877,740 sf 4.0 -3,511 Single Family 5,979 du -3.02 18,057 Multi-Family 7,037 du -3.02 21,252 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 2.0 -77 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 2.0 -410 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du -3.02 60 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du -3.02 205 Commercial 10 ac ---33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du -3.02 991 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du -3.02 815 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du -3.02 378 Commercial 160,000 sf 2.0 -320 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 4.0 -475 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du -3.02 6 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du -3.02 97 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 4.0 -817 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth No. Project Description Size Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Generation Rate (residents/du) b Population (persons) 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 4.0 -916 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac ---41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac ---42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du -3.02 1,404 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du -3.02 1,039 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du -3.02 519 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 2.0 -300 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du -3.02 1,359 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf 2.0 -20 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du -3.02 227 Commercial 5 ac ---49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac ---50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du -3.02 5,436 Commercial 261,360 sf 2.0 -523 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du -3.02 1,178 Open Space 20 ac ---52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du -3.02 1,063 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac ---54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 2.0 -458 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 2.0 -350 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 2.0 -275 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 2.0 -280 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf 2.0 -500 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 2.0 -50 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 2.0 -113 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac ---Commercial 307,098 sf 2.0 -614 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 2.0 -400 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth No. Project Description Size Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Generation Rate (residents/du) b Population (persons) 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 2.0 -160 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 2.0 -457 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 2.0 -87 Residential 203 du -3.02 613 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 2.0 -260 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 2.0 -178 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 2.0 -354 Office 52,000 sf 4.0 -208 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 2.0 -215 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 2.0 -1,100 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 2.0 -300 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 2.0 -131 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 2.0 -235 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 2.0 -144 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du -3.02 136 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du -3.02 1,933 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du -3.02 1,317 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du -3.02 921 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du -3.02 48 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du -3.02 24 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du -3.02 6,541 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du -3.02 91 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du -3.02 166 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du -3.02 725 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du -3.02 97 Subtotal Related Projects 223,529 Plus Proposed Project 16,895 Cumulative Total 240,424 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres. a Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-7 Projected Cumulative Population Growth No. Project Description Size Generation Rate (employees/1,000 sf) a Generation Rate (residents/du) b Population (persons) b City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Table 2: E5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, updated January 1, 2006, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_%20Housing_Data2006.pdf, April 11, 2007. * Project has been withdrawn. Source: City of Bakersfield; Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. As shown in Table IV.M-8, Projected Cumulative Housing Growth, the 30 residential related projects and the 16 related projects that have a residential component would contribute approximately 56,744 new residential units to the City. Combined with the proposed Project’s 425 proposed residential units, this would result in a cumulative total of 57,169 new residential units that would be introduced to the City by 2035. Table IV.M-8 Projected Cumulative Housing Growth Related Project No. Housing Type Size (du) 2 Single Family 1,206 3 Single Family 1,128 5 Single Family 1,300 6 Single Family 1,280 Multi-Family 120 7 Single Family 1,010 Multi Family 2,562 8 Single Family 318 9 Multi-Family 230 10 Single Family 300 12 Single Family 330 13 Residential 164 14 Residential 200 15 Residential 350 16 Single Family 4,412 Multi-Family 326 20 Multi-Family 11 26 Single Family 9,000 27 Single Family 4,871 Multi Family 5,541 28 Single Family 5,979 Multi-Family 7,037 31 Multi Family 20 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.M-8 Projected Cumulative Housing Growth Related Project No. Housing Type Size (du) 32 Multi Family 68 33 Multi Family 328 34 Multi Family 270 35 Multi Family 125 37 Multi Family 2 38 Multi Family 32 41 Residential 20 42 Residential 465 43 Residential 344 44 Residential 172 46 Residential 450 48 Residential 75 49 Residential 6 50 Residential 1,800 51 Residential 390 52 Residential 352 65 Residential 203 75 Residential 45 76 Residential 640 77 Residential 436 78 Residential 305 79 Residential 16 80 Residential 8 81 Residential 2,166 82 Residential 30 83 Residential 55 84 Residential 240 85 Residential 32 Subtotal Related Projects 56,744 Plus Proposed Project 425 Cumulative Total 57,169 Notes: du = dwelling unit. Source: City of Bakersfield; Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. With respect to the City’s growth projections, if all related projects were constructed by approximately 2035, the 240,424 cumulative residents represent approximately 70 (70.4) percent (240,424 ÷ 341,289) of the population growth expected to occur in the City by 2035 and approximately 22 (22.4) percent (240,424 ÷ 1,071,031) of the population growth expected to occur in the County by 2035. With respect to housing growth, if all related projects were constructed by approximately 2035, the 57,169 cumulative residences represent approximately 52 (52.4) percent (57,169 ÷ 109,024) of the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 housing growth expected to occur in the City by 2035 and approximately 32 (32.4) percent (57,169 ÷ 176,311) of the housing growth expected to occur in the County by 2035. It should be noted that the total population growth associated with the proposed Project would account for approximately seven percent (16,895 ÷ 240,424) of the cumulative total. The number of residences associated with the proposed Project would account for less than one percent of the cumulative total (425 ÷ 57,169). In addition, as discussed above, the proposed housing is expected to assist the City and County in meeting the regional housing need allocations set forth in the next update to the RHNAAP. Therefore, overall the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact and impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES As the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to population and housing, no mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project impacts with respect to population and housing would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.M. Population and Housing Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.M-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. POLICE PROTECTION INTRODUCTION This section focuses upon public services. Public services comprise of police protection, fire protection, schools, parks and recreation, and libraries. The potential impacts on public services were evaluated based, in part, on correspondence with the local agencies that serve the Project area. The section provides baseline information on, and evaluates potential impacts to, public services related to the proposed Project. Correspondence with public agencies is provided in Appendix C, Letters from Public Service and Utility Agencies, of this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site is located within the City of Bakersfield approximately three miles west of California State Route 99 (CA-99). Public safety services for the Bakersfield metropolitan area are provided by the Bakersfield Police Department (BPD), the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), however, the BPD provides law enforcement service to all areas within the City limits. BPD activities include the following: crime prevention, field patrol (ground and air), crime investigation, apprehension of offenders, regulation of non-criminal activity and the performance of a number of related and support services. Traffic and parking control functions are also provided, with some investigation of property damage, traffic accidents and complete investigations of all injury, fatal, intoxication and hit and run accidents. The BPD handles both crimes and traffic accidents. Uniformed officers and police service technicians in marked police vehicles provide the primary response to calls for service and preventative patrol. Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) The BPD consists of several different divisions, each with specific duties, which include the Crime Prevention Unit, the Narcotics Unit, Investigators, as well as other units. The BPD’s Operations Division is comprised of more than 230 officers who patrol the City 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Division is commanded by one captain, with each of five patrol shifts commanded by a lieutenant who serves as a watch commander. Each lieutenant is then served by two or more sergeants to direct and oversee the activities of twenty or more officers assigned to each shift. Over a 24-hour period, the BPD City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 patrol officers will respond to between 600 and 650 calls from the public. In addition to responding to calls from the public, the BPD focuses on preventive patrol and problem solving.1 The target ratio currently utilized by the BPD for the City of Bakersfield is 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. Based on a total approximate 2009 population of 337,719 residents2, 507 officers would be required for the City of Bakersfield. The current staffing ratio for the BPD is approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. The West Side Substation, located at 1301 Buena Vista Road, approximately three miles to the southwest, would serve the Project site. In March of 2007, the West Side Substation had 75 police personnel, which, according to the BPD, is not meeting the current demand for police services.3 Based on an estimated 150,000 Bakersfield residents4 who live west of of Highway 99 and are served by the substation, approximately 225 police personnel would be required. As of October 2007, staff had increased at the Westside substation to 88 police personnel.5 Table IV.N-1, Average Response Times for the Bakersfield Police Department, shows the average response times for the BPD in 2005 and 2006. Table IV.N-1 Average Response Times for the Bakersfield Police Department Priority of Crimea 2005 Response Time (minutes) 2006 Response Time (minutes) I 9.39 9.10 II 55.08 47.40 III 156.03 89.26 a A Priority I Crime is classified as an in-progress violent crime. A Priority II Crime is classified as an in-progress crime with no violence or weapons (potential for violence). A Priority III Crime is classified as a completed or interrupted crime with investigation required. Source: Written correspondence from BPD, received March 15, 2007. 1 City of Bakersfield Police Department, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/traffic/Patrol.htm, accessed March 13, 2007. 2 City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population and Area, updated May 1, 2009, website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_and_Housing_Data.pdf, May 19, 2009. 3 Written correspondence from Bakersfield Police Department, received March 15, 2007. 4 Bakersfield Police Department Annual Report, 2002. 5 City of Bakersfield Police Department, website: http://www.ci.bakersfield.ca.us/police/substation/index.htm, accessed February 21, 2008. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Part I crimes in Beat 3, in which the proposed Project site is located, is provided in Table IV.N-2, Beat 3 Crime Statistics -June-August 2009. Part I crimes include burglary, assault, aggravated assault, vehicle theft, and larceny. Table IV.N-2 Beat 3 Crime Statistics -June-August 2009 Type of Crime Number of Crimes Aggravated Assault Domestic Violence 3 Assault Simple 2 Burglary Forced-Residence 6 Burglary Forced-Non-Residence 3 Burglary No Force-Residence 1 Burglary 19 Theft Shoplift 1 Theft From Unlocked Vehicle 4 Theft From Building 1 Theft From Yard 1 Theft 4 Auto Theft 13 Total 58 Source: Bakersfield Police Department website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/Support_Services/Crime_Statistics.html, accessed September 25, 2009. Regulatory Framework Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The following two goals and policies are stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and relate to the delivery of police services to the proposed Project: • Ensure that the Bakersfield metropolitan area maintains a high level of public safety for its citizenry. • Ensure that adequate police and fire services and facilities are available to meet the needs of current and future metropolitan residents through coordination of planning and development of metropolitan police and fire facilities and services. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Local agencies were contacted to for their input regarding availability of services and what, if any, potential impacts the proposed Project would have their ability to provide services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, available data regarding existing facilities and services was reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if the proposed Project’s demand for police services requires the construction of additional police facilities, whose construction could cause significant environmental impacts. Project Design Features The following Project Design features with respect to police protection have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • The Project applicant would employ “standard” security feature precautions including secured construction sites and on-site security, to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement at the Project construction site. • The Project would use strategic design features such as security cameras, security officers, lights, fencing, gates, and sound building design to deter and prevent criminal activity. Project Impacts Construction Construction sites can provide hazards, and invite theft and vandalism. When not properly secured, construction sites can become a distraction for local law enforcement from more pressing matters that require their attention. Developers typically take precautions to prevent trespassing through construction sites. Most commonly, temporary fencing is installed around the construction site to keep out the curious. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Deployment of roving security guards is also an effective strategy in preventing problems from developing. The Project applicant will employ common sense precautions (including security patrol, fencing, night lighting, etc.) to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement at the proposed Project construction site and impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. As discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic of this Draft EIR, construction of the proposed Project could temporarily interfere with local and on-site emergency response. Although anticipated to be minimal and short-term, construction activities such as lane closures, sidewalk closures, and utility line construction, could have implications in relation to response time for emergency vehicles due to travel time delays. Other implications of construction include reduced travel time due to flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting the proposed Project site during construction. Construction activities would also generate traffic associated with the movement of construction equipment, hauling of demolition and graded materials, and employee traffic. Appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures will be followed in accordance with BPD and City of Bakersfield standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project’s construction-related impacts on police services would be less than significant. Operation As discussed in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would introduce approximately 16,895 new residents and 5,169 new employees to the Project site (15,611 net new employee-related population growth to the City of Bakersfield). Implementation of the proposed Project would also increase the number of site visitors (i.e., guests, customers) at the proposed residences and commercial uses. This increase in residents, employees, and site visitors would generate a potential increase in the demand for police protection services within this police service area. Impacts to police services would not occur all at once and would be distributed throughout the process of the proposed Project development, which is forecasted to occur through 2035. This would allow for the BPD to plan and prepare for operations to accommodate the proposed Project. Response Time Emergency access to the proposed Project site would be provided by Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, as well as the two proposed internal roadways which would bisect the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not impact existing emergency routes and no hazardous design features are included in the access design or site plan for the proposed Project that could impede emergency access. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be subject to the site plan review requirements of the BFD and the BPD to ensure that all access roads, driveways and parking areas would remain accessible to emergency service vehicles. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Additionally, as discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, construction activities attributable to the proposed Project are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the Project site would occur. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure C-66 is proposed to further reduce impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to reduce response times, and impacts would be less than significant. Officer-to-Population Ratio As noted above, the West Side Substation has 75 police personnel, which, as indicated by the BPD, is below the numerical target for police services. The target ratio currently utilized by the BPD for the City of Bakersfield is 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. The current officer-to-population ratio is approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents.6 According to the BPD, the 16,895 new permanent residents by 2035 would require 25 additional officers to meet the desired officer-to-population ratio. However, as noted in Section IV.M, Population and Housing, this population increase is based on an assumption that 100 percent of the proposed new employees would relocate to the City as a result of taking a job at the proposed Project. However, it is likely that many jobs would be filled by residents who would live in the residences constructed as part of the proposed Project or by residents who already reside in the City or who already commute into the City and that the number of persons relocating to the City as a result of the Project would be likely be limited. Any additional staffing would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the proposed Project would contribute. Also, the use of strategic Project Design Features including security cameras, security officers, lights, fencing, gates, and sound building design, would reduce the demand for BPD officers by enhancing public safety and discouraging criminal activity. By consulting with BPD during construction drawing plan check review and participation in existing funding mechanisms, Project impacts would be less than significant. Facilities According to the BPD, the proposed Project would not require the construction of new police facilities as they have determined that the current and proposed facilities are sufficient to meet the incremental 6 City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 demand of the Project.7 Therefore, impacts related to police protection facilities would be less than significant. General Plan Consistency The proposed Project would be consistent with the previously discussed goals as stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with respect to police services as the level of public safety would not be diminished due to construction and operation of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to development fees that would be used to fund police equipment and facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not disrupt the level of public safety for its citizenry, nor would it reduce adequate police services and facilities which meet the needs of current and future residents. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase the demand for police protection services in the Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demand for additional BPD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to BPD review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police protection and services would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to police protection and services. 7 Written correspondence from Bakersfield Police Department, received March 15, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. PUBLIC SERVICES 2. FIRE PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) and the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) provide fire protection, fire prevention, emergency medical and rescue services, arson investigation and hazardous materials coordination within the City of Bakersfield and Kern County, respectively, including the proposed Project area. The BFD and the KCFD, under a Joint Powers Agreement, have adopted nonoverlapping and contiguous station response boundaries within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Essentially, this means that the closest engine responds to an emergency regardless of jurisdiction. The BFD and the KCFD are discussed below. Funding for these services are also handled under the Joint Powers Agreement. Kern County Fire Department The KCFD operates 45 full time stations and one seasonal station throughout the County. The The KCFD serves the unincorporated communities of the County and the cities of Arvin, Delano, Maricopa, McFarland, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Taft, Tehachapi and Wasco. The Department is broken down into seven battalions. Each battalion covers a large geographical area and includes seven to nine fire stations.8 The closest KCFD fire station to the Project site is Station 65, and this would be the first to respond to service calls from areas of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road. Station 65 is part of Battalion 6 and is located at 9420 Rosedale Highway, which is approximately 2.2 miles northwest from the proposed Project site. Station 65 has three personnel on duty 24 hours a day with an engine and patrol available for all emergencies and Basic Life Support capability. All personnel are trained to the Emergency Medical Technician level.9 8 Written correspondence from Captain Benny Wofford, Assistant Fire Marshal, Kern County Fire Department, May 8, 2007. 9 It should be noted that Station 65 will be relocated in the future and may be transferred to the BFD, however this relocated station would still respond to the proposed Project site. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Bakersfield Fire Department The BFD currently has 13 stations operating throughout the City, with approximately 2 more planned for future construction. The closest BFD and primary response fire station to the proposed Project site is Fire Station 11. Located at 7000 Stockdale Highway, Station 11 is approximately two miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Station 11 would be the first to respond to areas of the proposed Project site east of Coffee Road (i.e. the proposed commercial development). Fire Station 11 is equipped with one Engine Company and consists of three person crews. Station 15, located at 1315 Buena Vista Road approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the proposed Project site, would send Ladder Truck 15 equipped with four personnel to serve the proposed Project. Fire Codes The California Fire Code, the California Building Code, the Kern County Code of Building Regulations and the Bakersfield Municipal Code are applied and utilized to regulate fire safety. The National Fire Code set forth by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is also utilized.10 Response Distance and Emergency Access The BFD does not assess the adequacy of fire protection based on response times. However, it is the City’s goal to have the first-due response unit arrive within seven minutes 90 percent of the time and to have a multiple unit response of at least 15 personnel arrive within eleven minutes 90 percent of the time. The time measurement is from the receipt of the 911 emergency call to the arrival of crews on scene. With regard to the first-due response unit, this includes a dispatching time of approximately one minute, a crew turnout time of approximately two minutes, and travel time of approximately four minutes.11 The average response time from BFD Station 11 to the proposed Project area is approximately 4-6 minutes, and BFD Station 15 has a response time time to the proposed Project area of approximately 5-7 minutes, both of which are within the City’s goal of a seven minute response.12 10 City of Bakersfield, Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, June 2002. 11 Written correspondence from Kirk Blair, Bakersfield Fire Department, March 19, 2007. 12 Written correspondence from Captain Benny Wofford, Assistant Fire Marshal, Kern County Fire Department, May 8, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The average response time for KCFD Station 65 to the proposed Project area is approximately 3 minutes. Upon relocation of Station 65, response time would be approximately 4 minutes.13 Regulatory Framework Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Public safety services for the Bakersfield metropolitan area are provided by the BFD and the Kern County Fire Department. Several goals and policies applicable to fire protection services are stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, and are as follows: • Ensure that the Bakersfield metropolitan area maintains a high level of public safety for its citizenry. • Ensure that adequate police and fire services and facilities are available to meet the needs of current and future metropolitan residents through coordination of planning and development of metropolitan police and fire facilities and services. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Local agencies were contacted to for their input regarding availability of services and what, if any, potential impacts the proposed Project would have their ability to provide services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, available data regarding existing facilities and services was reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project’s demand for fire services requires the construction of additional fire stations, whose construction could cause significant environmental impacts. 13 Written correspondence from Tyler B. Hartley, Deputy Chief, Bakersfield Fire Department, May 14, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to fire protection. Project Impacts Construction As discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, construction of the proposed Project could temporarily interfere with local and on-site emergency response. Although anticipated to be minimal and short-term, construction activities such as lane closures, sidewalk closures, and utility line construction, could have implications in relation to response time for emergency vehicles due to travel time delays. Other implications of construction include reduced travel time due to flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering and exiting the proposed Project site during construction. Construction activities would also generate traffic associated with the movement of construction equipment, hauling of demolition and graded materials, and employee traffic. Appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures will be followed in accordance with BFD and City of Bakersfield standards to reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Additionally, as discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, Mitigation Measure C-16 is proposed to further reduce impacts during construction. Therefore, the proposed Project’s construction-related impacts on fire services would be less than significant. Operation As discussed in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would introduce approximately 16,895 new residents and 5,169 net new employees to the Project site (15,611 net new employee-related population growth to the City of Bakersfield). Implementation of the proposed Project would also increase the number of site visitors (i.e., guests, customers) at the proposed residences and commercial uses. This increase in residents, employees, and site visitors would would generate a potential increase in the demand for fire protection services. Impacts to fire protection services would not occur all at once and would be distributed throughout the process of proposed Project development, which is forecasted to occur through 2035. This would allow the BFD and KCFD to plan and prepare for operations to accommodate the proposed Project. All development on-site would be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, Title 19, 22 and 27 of the California Safety Code Regulations, the Bakersfield Municipal Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Standards. Additionally, compliance with fire safety standards and requirements such as sprinkler systems, fire alarms, emergency access and adequate fire City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 flow at public and on-site hydrants would be required during the plan check process. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. Response Time As noted, the closest stations to the proposed Project site are KCFD Station 65 and BFD Station 11. The KCFD fire stations are situated in areas so as to meet the desired seven minute response time. The response time from KCFD Station 65 to the proposed Project area is approximately 3 minutes, which is within the seven minute response time. The response time from BFD Station 11 to the proposed Project area is approximately 4-6 minutes, and the response time from BFD Station 15 is approximately 5-7 minutes. According to the BFD, the distance between the proposed Project site and Station 11 meets the desired response distance standards of the Department.14 Additionally, as discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, construction activities attributable to the proposed Project are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access. As such, no impacts associated with the impediment of emergency vehicles due to construction activities on the streets adjacent to the proposed Project site would occur. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure C-16 is proposed to further reduce impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project impact with respect to response times would be less than significant. Facilities According to the BFD, no new facilities are anticipated to be required to be constructed due to the development of the proposed Project because the site and proposed uses will be covered by existing stations.15 In addition, the construction documents for the proposed Project would be subject to review and comment from the BFD and the KCFD. As the proposed Project would not create the need for expanded facilities, impacts to fire facilities would be less than significant. Fire Flow The City’s fire flow requirements for residential uses are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for one hour with 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure, and 1,000 gpm flow for two hours with 20 psi residual pressure. For commercial uses fire flow requirements are 2,000 to 3,500 gpm for 2 hours. The 14 Written correspondence from Tyler B. Hartley, Deputy Chief, Bakersfield Fire Department, May 14, 2009. 15 Ibid and written correspondence from Kirk Blair, Bakersfield Fire Department, March 19, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Water Department in cooperation with the City Fire Department would determine the requisite fire flow for specific commercial development as it occurs. Based on a fire flow test conducted by the City Fire Department on July 20, 2007, on the south side of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, there is a static pressure of 78 psi and a residual pressure of 74 psi at a flow rate of 2,776 gpm. Fire flows in the Project area are between 2,500 gpm and 3,000 gpm with 20 psi residual pressure. According to the BFD, fire flow for the proposed Project site would be adequate to serve the proposed land uses and impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant.16 Access Access would be provided according to the requirements of the BFD and KCFD and the proposed development plans would be submitted to the BFD and KCFD for review and comment prior to construction. Thus, Project impacts associated with fire services and apparatus accessibility after construction would be less than significant. General Plan Consistency The proposed Project would be consistent with the previously discussed goals as stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan with respect to fire protection services as the level of public safety would not be diminished due to construction and operation of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to development fees that would be used to fund fire equipment and facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not disrupt the level of public safety for its citizenry, nor would it reduce adequate fire protection services and facilities which meet the needs of current and future residents. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would increase the demand for fire protection services in the proposed Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional BFD and KCFD staffing, equipment, and possibly facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to BFD and KCFD review, and would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety requirements of the BFD, 16 Written correspondence from Tyler B. Hartley, Deputy Chief, Bakersfield Fire Department, May 14, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 KCFD, and City of Bakersfield in order to adequately address fire protection. Therefore, cumulative impacts on fire protection and services would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as potential Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to fire protection and services. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. PUBLIC SERVICES 3. SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Metropolitan Bakersfield area is served by many different school districts that are responsible for providing educational services within the area. The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Fruitvale School District and the Kern High School District. The Fruitvale School District is located within the northwest area of the City of Bakersfield and provides educational services for kindergarten through the eighth grade. The Kern High School District provides education for grades nine through twelve. Schools that would currently serve the proposed Project site include Columbia Elementary, Quailwood Elementary, Fruitvale Junior High School, Liberty High School, and Bakersfield High School. The school districts serving the proposed Project site are discussed below. Fruitvale Fruitvale School District The Fruitvale School District consists of Columbia Elementary, Discovery Elementary, Endeavour Elementary, Quailwood Elementary, and Fruitvale Junior High School. The area of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road (i.e., the residential portion) currently would be served by Columbia Elementary. Should other portions of the proposed Project site generate additional students in the City due to the parents employment within the proposed Project, those students would likely attend other elementary schools in the City. Columbia Elementary School is located at 703 Mondavi Way, which is less than one mile southwest of the proposed Project site. Quailwood Elementary, the other elementary school in the immediate area, is located at 7301 Remington Avenue, which is approximately one mile southeast of the Project site. Both of these schools are feeder schools for Fruitvale Junior High School, which would also serve the proposed Project site. Kern High School District The Kern High School District is the largest high school district in California with over 35,000 students and 3,500 employees. The area of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road would be served by Liberty High School and areas of the Project site east of Coffee Road would be served by Bakersfield High School. However, there are no residential uses planned for east of Coffee Road. Liberty High School is located at 925 Jewetta Road, which is approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed Project site. Bakersfield High School is located at 1241 G Street, which is approximately four miles east of the Project City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 site. As discussed above, the residential component of the proposed Project is located west of Coffee Road. Therefore, Liberty High School would generally be the recipient of new students generated by the proposed Project. Should other portions of the proposed Project site generate additional students in the City due to the parents’ employment within the proposed Project, those students would likely attend other elementary schools in the Kern High School District. Regulatory Framework California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) sets sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay to mitigate a project’s impacts on school facilities. The maximum fees authorized under SB 50 apply to zone changes, general plan amendments, zoning permits and subdivisions. The provisions of SB 50 are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other State or local laws.17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Local agencies were contacted for their input regarding availability of services and what, if any, potential impacts the proposed Project would have their ability to provide services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, available data regarding existing facilities and services was reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project’s demand for school services requires the construction of additional school facilities, whose construction could cause significant environmental impacts. 17 Government Code Section 65996 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Design Features There are no Project Design Features with respect to schools. Project Impacts As discussed in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would introduce a total of 425 new single-and multi-family dwelling units and a net increase of approximately 2,000,000 square feet of retail and office space. These new residents and employees would generate students within the attendance boundaries of the identified schools. Because school attendance is based on where residents live not work, for the following analyses, student generation is based upon the number of residential units and does not factor in potential students generated by an increase in employment due to the proposed Project. At this time, the local school districts do not have an official methodology to determine the number of students based upon the the proposed Project’s employment generation. The approximately 5,169 net new employees (15,611 net new employee-related population growth to the City of Bakersfield) generated by the Project are anticipated to be largely present in the local labor force and are not anticipated to generate a substantial number of students such that the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing school facilities would be required. The proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed in three phases with full buildout of the proposed Project forecasted to occur by 2035 with the proposed 425 residential dwelling units anticipated for construction in the final phase. Columbia Elementary School Currently, Columbia Elementary School has an enrollment of 569 students. The current capacity is 500 students, not including the six modular classrooms that are in use on the campus.18 Thus, the school is currently over capacity. The five-year projection for the school is 700 to 750 students.19 Projections for more than than five years are not available at this time; therefore, the five-year forecast is used in the analysis of impacts to schools throughout the entire period of Project buildout. As stated above, six modular classrooms are located on campus to provide additional classroom space, with limited potential to add more portable classrooms in the future. Tables IV.N-3, Student Generation Rate -Elementary School, and IV.N-4, Students Generated at Columbia Elementary School, show the applicable student generation rates as well as how many elementary students would be generated by proposed Project development 18 Written correspondence with Dr. Carl Olsen, District Superintendent, Fruitvale School District, May 26, 2009. 19 Written correspondence with Dr. Carl F. Olsen, District Superintendent, Fruitvale School District, March 22, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 occurring in Phase III. As such, the students generated by the proposed Project’s residential component would not be increasing student enrollment at Columbia Elementary School until approximately 25 years from now. Table IV.N-3 Student Generation Rate -Elementary School School Generation Rate (students/du) Columbia Elementary School 0.1581a 0.4013b a Generation rate based upon multi-family residential units. b Generation rate based upon single-family detached homes. Source: Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. Table IV.N-4 Students Generated at Columbia Elementary School School Development Phase Year Phase Completed Number of Residential Units Students Generated Columbia Elementary School I 2015 --II 2035 --III 2035 425 87 Total Students 87 Source: Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. The proposed Project’s residential component is forecasted to generate a total of 87 new elementary students after full buildout of all phases. The addition of 87 new students to Columbia Elementary would bring the total enrollment to approximately 656, which would further contribute to the current overcrowding of the school, but would not exceed the five-year projected student enrollment of 700-750 students. Although Project development at buildout would not exceed the projected enrollment of the Columbia Elementary, the school would not have adequate capacity to serve the 87 Project-generated students. It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, potential students generated by the proposed Project would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, the proposed Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50. Pursuant to state law, payment of required school fees mitigates all impacts to schools caused by a project; thus, under the law, no additional mitigation measures can be required of a project to reduce its impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, payment of the required SB 50 school fees would provide full and complete City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 mitigation of school impacts for the purposes of CEQA. The Fruitvale School District, in conjunction with the Kern High School District, currently levy fees of $2.97 per square foot of residential construction and $0.47 per square foot of commercial/industrial construction. The Fruitvale School District receives 60 percent of these fees ($1.78 per square foot of residential and $0.28 per square foot of commercial/industrial construction) and the Kern High School District receives 40 percent ($1.12 per square foot of residential and $0.19 per square foot of commercial/industrial construction). The payment of school fees is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. With payment of the required fees, impacts to Columbia Elementary School would be reduced to a less than significant level. Quailwood Elementary School As previously mentioned, the area of the Project site west of Coffee Road (i.e., the residential portion) would be served by Columbia Elementary School. Should other portions of the Project site generate additional students based upon the parent’s employment within the proposed Project, those students might attend Quailwood Elementary or another elementary school in the district. Therefore, Quailwood Elementary would only be impacted by students generated by the increase in employment associated with the proposed Project if the families live within the area served by Quailwood Elementary. While there is no official methodology for calculating the number of elementary students generated by the increase in employees associated with the proposed Project, the employees generated by the Project are anticipated to be largely present in the local labor force are not anticipated to generate a substantial number of students. Should the proposed Project’s employment generate considerable numbers of students attending Quailwood or another school, the Applicant’s payment of school fees per SB 50 is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. With payment of the required fees, impacts to Quailwood Elementary School would be less than significant. Fruitvale Junior High School Currently, Fruitvale Junior High School has an enrollment of 715 students. The current capacity is 600 students, not including the 12 modular classrooms that are in use on the campus.20 Thus, the school is currently over capacity.21 The five-year projection for the school is 850 to 875 students.22 Projections for 20 Written correspondence with Dr. Carl Olsen, District Superintendent, Fruitvale School District, August 16, 2007. 21 Written correspondence with Dr. Carl F. Olsen, District Superintendent, Fruitvale School District, May 26, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 more than five years are not available at this time; therefore, the five-year forecast is used in the analysis of impacts to schools throughout the entire period of proposed Project buildout. As stated above, 12 modular classrooms are located on the campus to provide additional classroom space, with limited potential to add more portable classrooms in the future. Tables IV.N-5, Students Generation Rate -Junior High School, and IV.N-6, Students Generated at Fruitvale Junior High School, show the applicable student generation rates as well as the number of junior high school students that would be generated by proposed Project development occurring in Phase III. As such, the students generated by the proposed Project’s residential component would not be increasing student enrollment at Fruitvale Junior School until approximately 25 years from now. Table IV.N-5 Students Generation Rate -Junior High School School Generation Rate (students/du) Fruitvale Junior High School 0.0419a 0.1090b a Generation rate based on multi-family residential units. b Generation rate based on single-family detached units. Source: Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. Table IV.N-6 Students Generated at Fruitvale Junior High School School Development Phase Year Phase Completed Number of Residential Units Students Generated Fruitvale Junior High School I 2015 --II 2035 --III 2035 425 23 Total Students 23 Source: Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. The proposed Project would generate approximately 23 new junior high students at buildout. The addition of 23 new students to Fruitvale Junior High to the proposed enrollment would bring the total enrollment to approximately 738 students, which would further contribute to the current overcrowding of the school. The school would not have adequate capacity to serve the potential 23 junior high students 22 Written correspondence with Dr. Carl F. Olsen, District Superintendent, Fruitvale School District, March 22, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 generated by the proposed Project. It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, proposed Project generated students would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, the proposed Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50 which is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. Liberty High School According to the Kern High School District, neither Liberty High School nor Bakersfield High School is projected to be over capacity in the foreseeable future.23 Liberty High School had an enrollment capacity in 2007 of 2,176 students and has a current enrollment of 1,925 students, which is 791 students below capacity.24 Tables IV.N-7, Students Generation Rate -High School, and IV.N-8, Students Generated at Liberty High School, show the applicable student generation rates as well as how many high school students would be generated by the proposed Project development occurring in Phase III. As such, the potential high school students generated by the proposed Project’s residential component would not be increasing student enrollment at Liberty High School until approximately 25 years from now. Table IV.N-7 Students Generation Rate -High School School Generation Rate (students/du) Liberty High School 0.1703a 0.2487b a Generation rate based on multi-family residential units. b Generation rate based on single-family residential units. Source: Written correspondence from Kern High School District, May 11, 2009. 23 Written correspondence with Charles Rosengard, Manager, Research & Planning, Kern High School District, May 11, 2009. 24 Ibid and Kern High School District website: http://www.kernhigh.org/Footer/AboutUs.aspx, accessed September 25, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.N-8 Students Generated at Liberty High School School Development Phase Year Phase Completed Number of Residential Units Students Generated Liberty High School I 2015 --II 2035 --III 2035 425 79 Total Students 79 a Generation rate based on multi-family residential units. b Generation rate based on single-family residential units. Source: Written correspondence from Kern High School District, March 12, 2007. The proposed Project would generate approximately 79 new students. It is anticipated that the school would have adequate capacity to serve the 79 Project-generated students.25 It is important to note when considering this conclusion that based on current projections, Project generated students would not be attending this school until approximately 2035. As a result, school capacity conditions, approximately 25 years from now, may be different than those forecasted to occur in 2012. Regardless of what school conditions may be around 2035, the proposed Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50 which is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. Bakersfield High School As previously mentioned, the area of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road (i.e., the residential portion) would be served by Liberty High School. Should other portions of the proposed Project site generate additional students based upon the parent’s employment within the proposed Project, those students could potentially attend Bakersfield High School or another high school in the district. Therefore, Bakersfield High School would only be impacted by students generated by the increase in employment associated with the proposed Project if the families live within the area served by Bakersfield High School. While there is no official methodology for calculating the number of students generated by the increase in employees associated associated with the proposed Project, the employees generated by the proposed Project are anticipated to be largely present in the local labor force and are not anticipated to generate a substantial number of students. Should the proposed Project’s employment generate considerable numbers of students attending Bakersfield High School or another school, the Applicant’s payment of school fees per SB 50 is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school 25 Written correspondence with Charles Rosengard, Manager, Research & Planning, Kern High School District, May 11, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 facilities impacts. With payment of the required fees, impacts to Bakersfield High School would be less than significant. Zone Change The proposed Project would change 4 acres currently designated for Public and Private Schools to Mixed Use Commercial. However, there are no current plans to develop a school on the site and therefore the zone change would not result in the loss of a proposed school facility. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the 85 related projects would increase the demand for school services and facilities in the proposed Project area. As shown in Table IV.N-9, Estimated Related Projects Student Generation, the related projects with residential components would generate approximately 18,596 elementary school students, 5,034 junior high school students, and 12,731 high school students. While there is no official methodology for calculating the number of students generated by commercial or industrial development, developer fees would be applied to the related projects with commercial or industrial development. The payment of developer fees is considered to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts as per SB 50. Therefore, cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation No. Project Description Size Elementary School Studentsb Junior High School Studentsc High School Studentsd Total Students 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf ----2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 484 131 300 915 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 453 123 281 856 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf ----5 Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du 522 142 323 987 6 The Canyon (03-Commercial 65,000 sf ----- City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation No. Project Description Size Elementary School Studentsb Junior High School Studentsc High School Studentsd Total Students 0337) Single Family 1,280 du 514 140 318 972 Multi-Family 120 du 19 5 20 44 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 405 110 251 767 Multi Family 2,562 du 405 107 436 949 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf ----8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 128 35 79 241 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 36 10 39 85 Light Industrial 41 ac ----10 Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac ----Retail 402,930 sf ----12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 132 36 82 250 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 66 18 41 124 Retail 95,000 sf ----14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 80 22 50 152 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 140 38 87 266 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du 1771 481 1097 3,349 Multi-Family 326 du 52 14 56 121 Retail 501,000 sf ----17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf ----18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf ----Hotel 300 rooms ----19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac ----20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 2 0 2 4 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac ----22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf ----23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf ----24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf ----25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf ----26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf ----Single Family 9,000 du 3612 981 2238 6,831 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation No. Project Description Size Elementary School Studentsb Junior High School Studentsc High School Studentsd Total Students 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf ----Single Family 4,871 du 1955 531 1211 3,697 Multi Family 5,541 du 876 232 944 2,052 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf ----28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf ----Office 877,740 sf ----Single Family 5,979 du 2399 652 1487 4,538 Multi-Family 7,037 du 1113 295 1198 2,606 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf ----30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf ----31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 3 1 3 7 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 11 3 12 25 Commercial 10 ac ----33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 52 14 56 121 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 43 11 46 100 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 20 5 21 46 Commercial 160,000 sf ----36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf ----37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 0 0 0 1 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 5 1 5 12 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf ----39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf ----40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac ----41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac ----42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 187 51 116 353 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 138 37 86 261 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 69 19 43 131 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf ---- City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation No. Project Description Size Elementary School Studentsb Junior High School Studentsc High School Studentsd Total Students 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 181 49 112 342 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf ----48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 30 8 19 57 Commercial 5 ac ----49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac ----50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 722 196 448 1,366 Commercial 261,360 sf ----51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 157 43 97 296 Open Space 20 ac ----52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 141 38 88 267 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac ----54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf ----55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf ----56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf ----57 Target ((Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf ----58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf ----59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf ----60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf ----61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac ----Commercial 307,098 sf ----62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf ----63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf ----64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf ----65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf ----Residential 203 du 81 22 50 154 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf ----67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf ----68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf ----Office 52,000 sf ----69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf ---- City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.N-9 Estimated Related Projects’ Student Generation No. Project Description Size Elementary School Studentsb Junior High School Studentsc High School Studentsd Total Students 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf ----71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf ----72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf ----73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf ----74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf ----75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 18 5 11 34 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 257 70 159 486 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du 175 48 108 331 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 122 33 76 231 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 6 2 4 12 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 3 1 2 6 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 869 236 539 1,644 82 Mike Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 12 3 7 23 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 22 6 14 42 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 96 26 60 182 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 13 3 8 24 Total Students Generated 18,596 5,034 12,731 36,361 Note: du = dwelling unit; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acre * A number of related projects are no longer proposed and have been withdrawn, however, these projects have been included in this table. a Assumes multi-family generation rate. b Source (elementary school student generation rate): 0.4013 students per single family unit; 0.1581 students per multi-family unit. Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. c Source (junior high school student generation rate): 0.1090 students per single family unit; 0.0419 students per multi-family unit. Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. d Source (high school student generation rate): 0.2052 students per single family unit; 0.1032 students per multi-family unit. Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006. Source (related projects list): City of Bakersfield, April 2009. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as potential Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION As the Project would comply with SB 50, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to schools. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. PUBLIC SERVICES 4. PARKS/RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Recreation and Park Facilities North of the River Recreation and Parks District The North of the River Recreation and Park District (NOR) is a Special District operating under Section 5780 of the California State Code. The NOR encompasses five school districts in portions of the City of Bakersfield north of the Kern River, 125 square miles in size with a population of 91,500 persons including the proposed Project site. Within the service boundaries of the NOR, there are 19 developed facilities totaling 177.9 acres. Programs are provided in adult team sports (baseball, hockey, softball, basketball, soccer, volleyball), youth sports (basketball, football, gymnastics, and soccer), aquatics activities, senior activities, youth activities as well as special event activities. Additional parks are either planned or under construction within the NOR District, however, none of these new parks would serve the proposed Project. In correspondence dated March 2007 and May 2009 from Colon Bywater with the NOR, that there is an existing deficiency in parkland in the proposed Project area. Table IV.N-10, Recreational and Park Facilities Serving the Project Site, shows the NOR parks and recreational facilities that would serve the proposed Project, with the exception of the Kern River Parkway, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department. Table IV.N-10 Recreational and Park Facilities Serving the Project Site Park Namea Type of Park Address Distance to Project Site (miles) Mondavi Park Neighborhood 503 Mondavi Way 0.9 Green Acres Park Community 2014 Calloway Drive 1.9 Liberty Park Community 11225 Brimhall Road 2.0 Kern River Parkway Regional N/A 2.0 a City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR, December 2002. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, September 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Mondavi Park includes a multi-purpose field, one basketball court, two volleyball courts, three family picnic areas, one group picnic area, a children’s play area, and an open play area. Green Acres Park includes two softball diamonds, a multi-purpose field, one horseshoe pit, one swimming pool, three family picnic areas, one group picnic area, a children’s play area, an open play area, community center, preschool, activity center, and gymnasium. Liberty Park includes a multi-purpose field, two volleyball courts, four family picnic areas, one group picnic area, a children’s play area, and an open play area. The Kern River Parkway provides a variety of scenery throughout the approximately 23 miles of existing parkway and bike path. Due to population increases throughout the City of Bakersfield and the lack of provision of appropriate recreational facilities for recent developments in the proposed Project area, there are currently insufficient regional facilities to serve the community. The demand for soccer practice facilities in particular, has increased substantially as the City’s population has increased. In order to address this demand, practice facilities have recently begun to be developed beneath transmission lines and baseball fields near the northeast corner of Stockdale Highway and Jewetta Avenue. Kern County The Kern County Parks and Recreation Department currently administers 40 neighborhood parks and eight regional parks. The department also provides landscape maintenance at 76 county buildings, and administers the use of 27 public buildings and all three county golf courses. These parks provide recreational resources, including barbeques and picnic tables, children’s playgrounds, baseball diamonds, group picnic areas, and family camping sites. Regulatory Framework Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Parks Element of the General Plan sets policies and minimum standards for the amount and quality of land devoted to parks. Park land is generally defined as any usable area of land or water designated on state, regional or local open space plans as open space or park land and is actively used for park and/or leisure recreational purposes with or without charge.26 26 City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Parks are generally categorized as either local or regional. Local parks generally range from one to 2.5 acres (mini-parks), to five to ten acres (neighborhood parks), and approximately 30 acres (community parks). Park facilities within Metropolitan Bakersfield are operated by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, NOR, Bear Mountain Recreation and Park District, school districts, colleges, and most recently, private developers. The provision of regional parks has been primarily the responsibility of Kern County. Goal 3 of the General Plan Parks Element sets as a goal the provision of four acres of park and recreation space for each 1,000 persons (based on the most recent census) for general regional recreation opportunity as a minimum standard. Park and recreational space includes miniparks, neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. The General Plan also states that neighborhood parks must be supplied at a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Policy 3 of the Public Services and Facilities Parks Element allows the City to require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or pay in lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas. Additionally, the following goals and policies stated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan are applicable to the proposed Project: • Coordinate development of park facilities and trail systems throughout the plan area which enhance the centers concept and complement unique visual or natural resources. • Ensure that all park and recreation facilities are adequately designed, landscaped, and maintained. • Encourage variety in the design of park facilities to enhance the lifestyle of residents to be served. • Design vegetation, earth form and activity areas to buffer noise, light, etc., from adjacent residents. State Quimby Act The California Government Code, Section 66477 (Quimby Quimby Act) authorizes cities and counties to enact ordinances that would require the dedication of land or payment of fees for park and recreation purposes for projects involving residential subdivisions. Quimby fees do not, however, apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions. The Quimby Act states that the dedication of land, or payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood or community park area exceeds that limit. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code As authorized under the State Quimby Act, the City of Bakersfield has established a local ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 15.80.050, which requires that as a result of proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 development, a minimum ratio of 2.5 acres of usable real property for each 1,000 persons who will reside in the city be devoted to park and recreation purposes. Project applicants are required to dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas. According to the Parks Element of the General Plan, this ratio is not currently met as the current park service level is at approximately 1.88 acres per 1,000 persons in the City. Section 15.80.070 provides a formula for calculating the necessary amount of land to be provided for park and recreation purposes based upon the size of development. Section 15.80.080 calculates the formula for fees in-lieu of land dedication. Additionally, per BMC Section 15.80.150, the value of on-site park and recreation improvements provided can be credited against fees or dedication of land. Improvements to park space must be provided in the amount equivalent to one acre per thousand persons and can be accepted or rejected for credit at the discretion of the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Local agencies were contacted for their input regarding availability of services and what, if any, potential impacts the proposed Project would have their ability to provide services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, available data regarding existing facilities and services was reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project’s demand for parks requires the construction of additional facilities, whose construction could cause significant environmental impacts. Project Design Features The following Project Design features have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • The proposed Project includes landscaped areas throughout the site that would represent a minimum of approximately ten percent of the proposed Project area. • The proposed Project includes four acres of open space within the residential portion of the Project site that includes a 2.6-acre park and 1.4 acres of open space along the southern Project boundary. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • The proposed Project includes approximately 2 acres of trails and paseos throughout the proposed Project site. Project Impacts The proposed Project would generate an increase of approximately 1,284 permanent Project residents that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities. The proposed Project includes four acres of open space within the proposed residential areas in addition to landscaped areas throughout the site that would represent a minimum of ten percent of the proposed Project area. The four acres proposed includes a 2.6-acre park and 1.4 acres of open space along the southern Project boundary within the residential portion of the proposed Project site. Passive recreational uses are proposed within the 1.4 acres of open space as opposed to active recreational uses due to the vicinity to Brimhall Road. The proposed Project also includes approximately two acres of trails and paseos throughout the proposed Project site. The integrated network of on-site park and recreational facilities would tie into existing off-site facilities as feasible. Additionally, the Applicant may coordinate with the City of Bakersfield and the NOR to help meet the demand for regional park facilities by providing off-site facilities. The Municipal Code identifies a ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which would require provision of 3.2 acres of park and recreation area with implementation of the proposed Project.27 The Quimby Act identifies a ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents, which would require the provision of 3.8 acres of park and recreation area. The four acres that would be provided by the proposed Project is equal to a rate of 3.1 acres per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the existing ratio of 1.88 acres per 1,000 persons as well as the regulatory requirements of both the City of Bakersfield and the Quimby Act. In addition, the proposed Project would include improvements to the park space in an amount equivalent to one acre per thousand persons. Therefore, the proposed Project would provide 3.1 acres of parkland per thousand persons plus a minimum of one acre per thousand persons in park improvements. The Project proposes parkland and park improvements in excess of existing regulatory requirements. If the proposed Project were to satisfy the Municipal Code requirement of 3.2 acres exclusively through parkland dedication, the City would be responsible for the cost of both improvements and ongoing maintenance. The Project proposes to pay for park improvements and provide maintenance of the parks in perpetuity by a property owner’s association. Therefore, by providing parkland at a ratio consistent with 2.5 acres per 1,000 population, improvements valued in excess of the fees established within the City’s parkland dedication 27 Based upon 3.02 average persons per dwelling unit in the City of Bakersfield. Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2009, with 2000 Benchmark, website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/, accessed June 2, 2009. Calculation of 1,284 persons x .0025 acres per person equates to 3.2 acres. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ordinance, and ongoing maintenance in perpetuity, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. The General Plan identifies a goal of four acres per 1,000 residents for regional recreational opportunities. Regional parks within the MBGP area are designed for a wide range of uses and can accommodate large volumes of visitors. Although the Project would increase demand on some regional facilities, the increased demand would be short-term in nature, during distinct times of the year. As discussed above, the four acres of parkland (3.1 acres per thousand residents) proposed would adequately serve the needs of future Project residents. In addition, the proposed Project would include improvements to the park space in an amount equivalent to one acre per thousand persons. Additionally, although the proposed General Plan amendment would would change the on-site designation of Open Space, Parks and Recreational Facilities (OS-P), the Project will provide parks and open space in exceedance of requirements and existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to recreational resources would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in the Project area. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional parks and recreation staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. The related projects would generate an increase of approximately 226,375 permanent residents that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities. The Municipal Code identifies a ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, which would require provision of 566 acres of park and recreation area with implementation of the related projects. The Quimby Act identifies a ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents, which would require require the provision of 679 acres of park and recreation area. Similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to review and would dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s Municipal Code, General Plan, and the Quimby Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to parks and recreation. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. PUBLIC SERVICES 5. LIBRARIES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Within the City of Bakersfield, the Kern County Library provides library services at one main library, 25 community branches, and two bookmobile units. The Kern County Library is governed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. Beale Memorial Library, which is the main library, and seven of the community libraries are within the Greater Bakersfield area, while the remaining 18 community branches are located throughout Kern County. The Kern County Library serves a population of approximately 817,517 and covers a service area of 8,073 square miles. Approximately 888,932 books and other materials comprise the Kern County Library collection.28 The primary library branch serving the Project site is the Southwest Library, which opened in 1986. The Southwest Branch Library is located at 8301 Ming Avenue, approximately three miles south of the Project site. The Southwest Branch Library is approximately 18,336 square feet in size. The branch is open four days a week.29 Prior to 2006, the County leased the Southwest Library building. The building has since been donated, making the Kern County Library the owner, thereby eliminating lease costs for this branch. In 2000, the Southwest Branch Library served a population of 48,904 individuals and had 74,023 existing volumes. The branch volumes needed for the estimated 2020 population are approximately 130,683, which leaves a 56,660 deficit.30 28 Kern County Library Annual Report 2007/2008, website: http://www.kerncountyl ibrary.org/HTML/about/annual.html, accessed June 2, 2009. 29 Kern County Library Southwest Branch, website: http://www.kerncountylibrary.org/HTML/about/branch/sw.html, accessed June 2, 2009. 30 Assumes 2 volumes per person for Library Service Areas over 10,000 persons. Kern County Library Facilities Master Plan to the Year 2020, County Administrative Office and and Kern County Library, February 12, 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology Local agencies were contacted to for their input regarding availability of services and what, if any, potential impacts the proposed Project would have their ability to provide services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, available data regarding existing facilities and services was reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project’s demand for library services requires the construction of additional facilities, whose construction could cause significant environmental impacts. Project Impacts As discussed in Section IV.M, Population & Housing, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would introduce approximately 1,284 new residents and 5,179 net new employees to the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would also increase the number of site visitors (i.e., guests, customers) at the proposed residences and commercial uses. This increase in residents, employees, and site visitors would generate a limited increase in the demand for library services. It is expected that the 5,169 employees generated by the proposed Project will patronize libraries near their homes during nonwork hours rather than libraries near their place of work, therefore, it is expected that employees would not create a significant demand on the Southwest Branch. The Southwest Branch serves a population of approximately 48,904 persons. By 2020, it is forecasted that the service population for the Southwest Branch will be 65,342.31 The proposed Project would contribute 1,284, or approximately 7.8 percent of this anticipated growth. This increase in population is within the expected population growth for the library service area (LSA). Furthermore, the introduction of permanent Project residents to the Southwest LSA would not occur for another approximately 25 years until the Project’s residential development is constructed around 2035. 31 Kern County Library Facilities Master Plan to the Year 2020, County Administrative Office and Kern County Library, February 12, 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The Kern County Library Facilities Master Plan (“Plan”) provides the County’s 20-year plan for improving and expanding library branches. According to the Plan, seven new libraries are proposed within Kern County. Three of these new library branches will be Rosedale West, Rosedale East, and Southwest (Gosford/Panama). The Plan states that the existing Southwest Branch will need to be replaced by a 46,607 square foot facility by 2020 in order to adequately serve the projected population of over 65,000. The Plan divides the Southwest Branch’s population service area into several areas to include a new library service area south of the existing branch, and the new developments of Rosedale East and Rosedale West. The construction of these three libraries would relieve some of the demand on the Southwest Branch, while improving library access to local residents. Currently, no existing library serves the Rosedale area, which is west of the Project site. Rosedale is served by a bookmobile for a few hours every week. The addition of permanent residents to the City of Bakersfield that would be served by the Southwest Branch LSA is consistent with anticipated population growth as discussed in Section IV.M, Population and Housing. In addition, the libraries proposed in the Rosedale East, Rosedale West, and Southwest (Gosford/Panama) areas would contribute to providing adequate library services to the residents of Bakersfield and unincorporated Kern County. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts regarding library services. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the 85 related projects would increase the demand for library services in the Project area. As discussed in Section IV.M, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, approximately 226,375 new residents would be generated by the related projects in combination with the proposed Project. Specifically, the additional residential population would lead to increased demands for additional library staffing, volumes, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. Therefore, cumulative impacts on library services would be less-than-significant. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to libraries. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.N. Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. WASTEWATER INTRODUCTION This section discusses the existing utilities and service systems in the proposed Project area and examines the utilities and service systems that would be needed for the proposed Project. The public utilities and service systems that are addressed in this analysis include the following: (1) wastewater; (2) water; (3) solid waste; (4) electricity; and (5) natural gas. The potential impacts on utilities and service systems were evaluated based, in part, on correspondence with the local agencies that serve the proposed Project area. Correspondence with the public and utility agencies is provided in Appendix C, Letters From Public Service and Utility Agencies, to this Draft EIR. Additionally, the analysis in this section is based in part on the Water Supply Assessment prepared by Quad Knopf, July 2009, and the Concept Infrastructure Analysis prepared by PSOMAS, January 21, 2008, updated October 8, 2009. These documents are provided as Appendices R, Water Supply Assessment, and S, Concept Infrastructure Analysis, of this Draft EIR, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Local Area Conditions The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division is responsible for the maintenance and operation of wastewater treatment facilities in the City. The City of Bakersfield is served by five major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2, the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3, the North of River Sanitary District (NORSD) Plant, Mount Vernon/Panorama District Plant, and the Lamont Public Utility District Plant. Additionally, there are several small, temporary treatment facilities in the Rosedale area north of the Kern River and west of NORSD’s service area. Treatment Plant No. 3 would provide wastewater treatment and reclamation services for the proposed Project site. Treatment Plant No. 3 is located approximately seven miles to the south-southeast of the proposed Project at the intersection of McCutchen Road and Ashe Road and serves an area covering 67.7 square miles to the west of Highway 99. The current capacity of Treatment Plant No. 3 is 16 million gallons per day (MGD).1 Per the City’s flow logs, Treatment Plant No. 3 is currently running at 15.5 MGD. Construction has commenced for the 1 Based on conversations with PSOMAS staff and David Bradshaw, acting supervisor for Treatment Plant No. 3. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 expansion of this facility to a capacity of 32 MGD. The expansion project is funded by municipal bonds and construction is estimated to take approximately thirty months. The expansion of this facility is fully funded and construction began in August 2007. It is anticipated to be complete by April of 2010. A portion of the expansion capacity is expected to be made available prior to completion of the expansion project. This expansion is part of the City’s overall expansion process as outlined in Technical Memoranda, Plant 3 Service Area Analysis and Future Plant 4 Feasibility Study at Build-out prepared by Parsons, dated September 8, 2006. This study states that at ultimate build-out, Treatment Plant No. 3’s capacity could be as high as 64 MGD and as such, would have enough capacity to serve additional areas outside the facility’s current service area. However, the report recommends that Treatment Plant No. 3 be limited to 32 MGD with all excess flows from other service areas being diverted to future Treatment Plant No. 4. Project Area Conditions The existing sewer lines in and adjacent to the Project site include an 18-inch line located in Brimhall Road from El Toro Viejo Road to Coffee Road and a 36-inch line in the alignment of the future El Toro Viejo Road from Brimhall Road north to and extending beyond the BNSF Railway right-of-way. These two lines converge to a 36-inch line in Brimhall Road from the intersection of the future El Toro Viejo Road to Windsong Road. This line continues westerly and increases to a 42-inch line further along Brimhall Road to Buena Vista Road, ultimately discharging to Treatment Plant No. 3. Additionally, the 42-inch sewer line from White Lane to Pacheco and the 48-inch line from Pacheco directly to Treatment Plant No. 3 would also serve the Project area.2 Figure IV.O-1 illustrates existing utilities and easements in the proposed Project area, including sewer lines. As detailed in the CSA-71 Sewer Master Plan, an analysis of the collection and distribution system in the proposed Project area was prepared on November 2003 and revised on March 2004 indicating that the existing lines flowing westerly adjacent to and downstream of the proposed Project site have excess capacity ranging from 6.09 to 8.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 3.9 to 5.3 MGD for the 36-inch sewer line in the future extension of El Toro Viejo Road, and 3.12 cfs to 14.94 cfs or 2 MGD to 9.7 MGD in the 36-inch and 42-inch lines in Brimhall Road. This document does not include any existing wastewater flows generated from the proposed Project site. As this is the case, the analysis of the proposed Project’s potential impacts addresses this situation by forecasting impacts based on total wastewater flows, rather than net wastewater flows (i.e., Project flows less existing on-site flows). 2 Based on conversations with CAJA staff and Manpreet Behl, Engineer II, Public Works Division, City of Bakersfield on February 10, 2010. Feet 0 200 400 600 800 Source: PSOMAS, 03/11/05. Figure IV.O-1 Existing Utilities and Easements City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Regulatory Setting Local Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets forth goals and policies to ensure that utilities and service systems have adequate capacity to service future projects. This includes requiring provision of adequate sewer service, trunk sewer availability, and treatment/disposal capacity throughout the metropolitan area. Additionally, the City requires that all new development pay a pro rata share of the cost of expansion as necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology To determine the environmental constraints, demands, and requirements related to the potential for access and utility infrastructure impacts, plan and substructure maps for utilities in and around the proposed Project site were reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (c) 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. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Design Features There are no proposed Project Design Features with respect to wastewater. Project Impacts The CSA-71 Sewer Master Plan prepared for the County of Kern by Quad Knopf, November 2003, revised March 2004, does not include any existing wastewater flows currently generated from the proposed Project site. Therefore, in order to conservatively evaluate proposed Project’s potential impacts to system wastewater flow capacities evaluated in the CSA-71 Sewer Master Plan, all wastewater flows generated by the proposed Project are assumed to be new flows added to the sewer system. The wastewater flow volumes for the proposed Project were calculated using the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works’ Design Standards of the Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual. As shown in Table IV.O-1, at full buildout in 2035 the proposed Project is calculated to generate 2.40 cfs (1.55 MGD) of wastewater flow. Of the total 2.40 cfs (1.55 MGD) generated by the proposed Project at full buildout, there would be an increase in flows of 0.83 cfs (0.54 MGD) for Phase I, 0.65 cfs (0.42 MGD) for Phase II, and 0.91 cfs (0.59 MGD) for Phase III. Table IV.O-1 Proposed Project Wastewater Flows Gross Area (acres) Dwelling Units Factor (residential) Population Average Daily Discharge (cfs) Peak Factor (cfs) Design Discharge Rate (cfs) Phase I (2015) Commercial Uses 83 ----0.83 b Phase II (2035) Commercial Uses 65 -----0.65 b Phase III (2035) Commercial Uses Residential Single Family Residential Multi-Family 44 19 24 -80 345 -2.6 2.0 -208 a 690 a -0.0322 c 0.1068 c 3.74 d 3.31 d 0.44 b 0.12 e 0.35 e Estimated Total Project Wastewater Discharge for Phase I (2015) 0.83 Estimated Total Project Wastewater Discharge for Phase II (2035) 0.65 Estimated Total Project Wastewater Discharge for Phase III (2035) 0.91 Estimated Total Project Wastewater Discharge at Project Buildout (2035) 2.40 f Notes: (a) Calculated as dwelling units x residential factor. (b) Calculated as gross area x 0.010 (includes peak factor). (c) Calculated as population x 100 gallons/day/person x 1 foot3/7.4805 gallons x 1 day/24 hours x 1 hour/60 minutes x 1 minute/60 seconds. (d) Calculated as 2.65 x (Average Daily Discharge)-0.1. (e) Calculated as average daily discharge x peak factor. (f) Minor rounding discrepancies may occur when tabulating for comparison overall flows. Source: PSOMAS, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Of the various sewer lines that would serve the proposed Project site, the 36-inch sewer line in the alignment of the future El Toro Viejo Road from Brimhall Road north to and extending beyond the BNSF Railway right-of-way has the lowest excess capacity at 3.12 cfs (2 MGD). With full implementation of the proposed Project, a remaining excess capacity at that location of 0.72 cfs (.45 MGD) (3.12 cfs [2 MGD] available less 2.40 cfs [1.55 MGD] proposed Project flows) would occur. Other downstream locations would have up to 12.54 cfs (8.1 MGD) in excess capacity. Therefore, the existing sewer lines have adequate capacity to meet the proposed Project’s demand at buildout and as a result the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Since the existing facilities are sufficient to meet the proposed Project’s demand at buildout, the demand attributable to each development phase would also be accommodated by these facilities. As a result, potential Project impacts on the wastewater conveyance system would be less than significant. At full buildout in 2035, the proposed Project would add a total of 1.55 MGD of wastewater flow to Treatment Plant No. 3. The planned 16 MGD expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 from 16 MGD to 32 MGD, which is anticipated to be complete by April of 2010, would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. As the expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 would be completed prior to the occupancy of Phase I of the proposed Project, sufficient treatment capacity would be available to meet the demand generated by each development phase as well as the Project at buildout. Therefore, Treatment Plant No. 3 would have adequate capacity to accommodate and appropriately treat the proposed Project’s demand consistent with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQB) and the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. As such, potential Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan As discussed previously and in Table IV.O-2, Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP, the proposed Project would be served by the existing wastewater system, which has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and Project impacts with respect to the MBGP would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-2 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP Public Services and Facilities Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency General Utility Services Policy 5: Require all new development to pay its pro rata share of the cost of necessary expansion in municipal utilities, facilities and infrastructure for which it generates demand and upon which it is dependent. Consistent. Appropriate fees would be applied to the development of the proposed Project site. As proposed, the Project would provide all required utilities, facilities, and infrastructure on-site and no new expansion of off-site facilities, utilities, or infrastructure would be required. Sewer Service Goal 1: Ensure the provision of adequate sewer service to serve the needs of existing and planned development in the planning area. Consistent. There will be sufficient capacity, as discussed previously, to provide service to the proposed Project as well as the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR that would be served by Treatment Plant No. 3. Goal 3: Provide trunk sewer availability to and treatment/disposal capacity for all metropolitan urban areas, to enable cessation or prevention of the use of septic tanks where such usage crates potential public health hazards or may impair groundwater quality, and to assist in the consolidation of sewerage systems. Provide sewer service for urban development regardless of jurisdiction. Consistent. The proposed Project would be served by the City of Bakersfield wastewater system and no septic systems are proposed. Wastewater treatment facilities operated by the City of Bakersfield, as concluded below, have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project site. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2009. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects listed in Table III-3, Related Projects List, in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR would increase wastewater generation. However, increased wastewater flows throughout the Treatment Plant No. 3 service area would be served by the expansion of this facility from a capacity of 16 MGD to 32 MGD. Although, this facility only has an existing available excess capacity of approximately 0.5 MGD, a portion of the expansion capacity is expected to be available prior to completion of the expansion project. As shown in Table IV.O-3, Cumulative Wastewater Generation, the 50 of the 85 related projects that are within the service area of Treatment Plant No. 3 would generate approximately 12,175,952 gpd or 12 MGD of wastewater. In combination with the approximately 1.55 MGD or 1,551,161 gpd of the proposed Project, the total cumulative wastewater generation would be approximately 14 MGD or 13,727,113 gpd. This is approximately 44 percent of the 32 MGD capacity of Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition to the existing flow of 15.5 MGD of wastewater, the additional 14 MGD would not exceed the 32 MGD capacity of the Treatment Plant No. 3. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Out of the other 35 related projects, two have been withdrawn; therefore, only 33 remaining projects would be served by one of the following four other major wastewater treatment facilities: the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2, the NORSD Plant, Mount Vernon/Panorama District Plant, and the Lamont Public Utility District Plant. However, as noted elsewhere in this Draft EIR, these projects have been included in the cumulative impacts totals to represent a conservative estimate. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department, Wastewater Division is proposing to construct Treatment Plant No. 4. It is anticipated that these facilities would have adequate capacity to serve and treat wastewater generated by the related projects not served by Treatment Plant No. 3. In addition, many of the related projects consist of redevelopment of existing developed sites that would result in the elimination of existing wastewater generation patterns at these sites. Therefore, it is concluded that Treatment Plant No. 3 has adequate capacity to serve and adequately treat wastewater from the proposed Project and related projects within its service area as they are developed. The potential need for the related projects to require upgraded wastewater lines to accommodate wastewater generated by these projects is site-specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. Cumulative increases in wastewater generation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. However, the following two mitigation measures have been recommended by the City to ensure impacts to the City’s wastewater trunk-line system would be less than significant. O-1. Prior to or along with submittal of a tentative subdivision map, site plan review application, or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sewer study to the City Engineer to determine and verify sufficient sewer capacities downstream of the project. If the City Engineer determines there is not adequate capacity, Mitigation Measure O-2 as follows shall be required. O-2. If the City Engineer determines there is not adequate capacity, the following shall be required: The developer shall participate in a planned sewer district and/or construct additional sewer infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction of the project site shall be phased to accommodate sewer capacities as approved by the City Engineer. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-3 Cumulative Wastewater Generation No. Project Description Size Wastewater Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Wastewater Flow (gpd) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 83/1,000 sf 35,705 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 350/unit 422,100 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 350/unit 394,800 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 83/1,000 sf 5,423 5* Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du 350/unit 455,000 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 5,395 Single Family 1,280 du 350/unit 448,000 Multi-Family 120 du 350/unit 42,000 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 350/unit 353,500 Multi Family 2,562 du 350/unit 896,700 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 83/1,000 sf 78,161 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 350/unit 111,300 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 350/unit 80,500 Light Industrial 41 ac 112/1,000 sf -10* Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du 350/unit 105,000 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac --Retail 402,930 sf 83/1,000 sf 33,443 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 350/unit 115,500 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 350/unit 57,400 Retail 95,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 7,885 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 350/unit 70,000 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 350/unit 122,500 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du 350/unit 1,544,200 Multi-Family 326 du 350/unit 114,100 Retail 501,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 41,583 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 83/1,000 sf 262,944 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 83,000 Hotel 300 rooms 130/room 39,000 19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac --20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 350/unit 3,850 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac 112/1,000 sf -22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 83/1,000 sf 19,587 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 38,595 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 83/1,000 sf 52,000 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 58,100 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 124,500 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-3 Cumulative Wastewater Generation No. Project Description Size Wastewater Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Wastewater Flow (gpd) Single Family 9,000 du 350/unit 3,150,000 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 116,200 Single Family 4,871 du 350/unit 1,704,850 Multi Family 5,541 du 350/unit 1,939,350 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 83/1,000 sf 103,947 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 56,938 Office 877,740 sf 83/1,000 sf 72,852 Single Family 5,979 du 350/unit 2,092,650 Multi-Family 7,037 du 350/unit 2,462,950 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 83/1,000 sf 3,186 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 17,015 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 350/unit 7,000 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 350/unit 23,800 Commercial 10 ac --33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 350/unit 114,800 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 350/unit 94,500 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 350/unit 43,750 Commercial 160,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 13,280 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 83/1,000 sf 9,856 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 350/unit 700 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 350/unit 11,200 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 83/1,000 sf 16,961 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 19,007 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac 112/1,000 sf -41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac --42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 350/unit 162,750 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 350/unit 120,400 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 350/unit 60,200 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 12,450 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 350/unit 157,500 47 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf 112/1,000 sf 1,120 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 350/unit 26,250 Commercial 5 ac --49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac --50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 350/unit 630,000 Commercial 261,360 sf 83/1,000 sf 21,693 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-3 Cumulative Wastewater Generation No. Project Description Size Wastewater Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Wastewater Flow (gpd) 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 350/unit 136,500 Open Space 20 ac --52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 350/unit 123,200 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac 112/1,000 sf -54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 83/1,000 sf 19,004 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 14,525 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 83/1,000 sf 11,422 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 11,620 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf 83/1,000 sf 20,742 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 2,075 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 83/1,000 sf 4,681 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac --Commercial 307,098 sf 83/1,000 sf sf 25,489 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 16,600 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 6,640 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 83/1,000 sf 18,981 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 83/1,000 sf 3,615 Residential 203 du 350/unit 71,050 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 10,790 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 7,387 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 14,691 Office 52,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 4,316 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 83/1,000 sf 8,910 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 45,650 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 83/1,000 sf 12,450 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 83/1,000 sf 5,423 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 83/1,000 sf 9,762 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 83/1,000 sf 5,966 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 350/unit 15,750 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 350/unit 224,000 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du 350/unit 152,600 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 350/unit 106,750 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 350/unit 5,600 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 350/unit 2,800 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 350/unit 758,100 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 350/unit 10,500 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 350/unit 19,250 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 350/unit 84,000 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-3 Cumulative Wastewater Generation No. Project Description Size Wastewater Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Wastewater Flow (gpd) 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 350/unit 11,200 Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Total 21,490,966 Less 35 Related Projects Outside Service Area of Treatment Plant No. 3 -9,315,014 50 Related Projects within Treatment Plant No. 3 Service Area Estimated Wastewater Total 12,175,952 Plus Estimated Wastewater Project Total +1,551,161 Treatment Plant No. 3 Service Area Estimated Cumulative Wastewater Plus Project Total 13,727,113 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres a Source: Wastewater generation rates are based on values provided by CIWMB 2004, and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006. b All dwelling units assumed to be two-bedroom units as actual breakdown is unavailable. c Assumes commercial generation rates as it is a mix of office and commercial uses. *Project has been withdrawn. 50 Related Projects within the service area of Treatment Plant No. 3 are represented with italicized text. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, February 2010. MITIGATION MEASURES As noted, with the approved and funded expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3, there will be sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project and Project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required since impacts are less than significant; however, the City has recommended Mitigation Measures O-1 and -2 to ensure potential cumulative impacts to the City’s wastewater trunk-line system would be less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, or result in a determination that there is inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The implementation of the Mitigation Measures O-1 and -2, are not necessary to reduce the proposed Project’s impacts to less than significant levels and would assure that this would occur. As such, Project and cumulative impacts with regard to wastewater would be less than significant. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 2. WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Municipal Water Supply The City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System is a municipally owned system acquired by the City on December 22, 1976. The Domestic Water System serves domestic, commercial, and industrial customers in the westerly and northwesterly portion of the City, generally west of Stine Road. The City currently contracts with the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), an investor owned utility, to perform normal daily operations and maintenance, meter reading and billing. The City of Bakersfield Water Board, under the direction of the City Council, is the governing board for the Domestic Water System. The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department administers the operation of the water system. At the time the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update was published (November 2007), the City derived all of its delivered water supply from groundwater wells located within its Domestic Water System service area. At that time, there were 58 wells, six water tanks, and 25 booster pumps in operation. The system has over 35,000 service connections and is 100 percent metered. Surface Water Deliveries The proposed Project site is located within the City of Bakersfield Domestic System, which has entitlements to surface water from the Kern County Water Agency’s (KCWA) service area identified as Improvement District 4 (ID4). The KCWA operates the Cross Valley Canal, which delivers ID4 its entitlement of State Water Project water from the California Aqueduct. Through a contract with the California Department of Water Resources, the KCWA ID4 has entitlement to 82,594 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of State Water Project water. From the 82,594 AF/yr, the City of Bakersfield will receive 6,500 AF/yr for domestic use, and 8,780 AF/yr for groundwater recharge efforts. Most often this water is exchanged for Kern River water by other local water districts that have entitlements to Kern River water. The proposed Project is eligible to receive surface water from the KCWA. The Friant-Kern Canal, which is a part of the Central Valley Project, is adjacent to the proposed Project’s eastern boundary. The Friant-Kern Canal delivers water to various federal districts for mostly irrigation City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 and agricultural purposes. The proposed Project area has not received any surface water deliveries from the Friant-Kern Canal, nor does the proposed Project site have entitlements to that water. The City of Bakersfield has started delivery of Kern River surface water to the northwest area of Bakersfield via the new Cal Water Northwest Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The Northwest WTP was completed and put into operation by the City of Bakersfield in May 2007. It is located at the corner of Norris Road and Coffee Road. The northwest feeder pipeline project is complete pending City and County interties to the system. The northwest feeder pipeline delivers treated surface water from the KCWA’s Henry Garnett WTP to portions of ID4. The northwest feeder pipeline extends down Coffee Road and supplies treated surface water to the ID4 service area south of Rosedale Highway. Deliveries into the City’s domestic system serving the proposed Project site will receive 6,500 AF/yr from the Henry Garnett WTP through participation in the Northwest Feeder Pipeline and the Henry C. Garnett Water purification plant expansion project. Additionally, Cal Water is currently in the operational testing and certification phase of a micro-filtration domestic water treatment plant (North Garden Water Treatment Plant) in northwest Bakersfield that will treat Kern River water. The plant will produce 8.0 MGD base load with a 10.4 MGD peaking capacity. Half of the plant capacity of 4,480 AF/yr (4 MGD) is contracted to the City of Bakersfield. Furthermore, construction of the Southwest Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant is proposed in two phases. Phase I of the proposed Southwest Bakersfield WTP will provide 22,400 AF/yr (20 MGD) of base load capacity (peaking capacity will be 23 MGD); half of the capacity will be used by Cal Water, the other half of 11,200 AF/yr (10 MGD) base load (11.5 MGD peaking capacity) will be contracted to the City. The plant is expected to be online beginning in 2012. Phase II of the proposed Southwest Bakersfield WTP will provide another 22,400 AF/yr (20 MGD) of base load capacity to bring the total to 44,800 AF/yr (40 MGD). Peaking capacity will be 46 MGD. Half the capacity will be contracted to the City. Implementation of Phase II will depend on the rate of growth in the southwest area, but is estimated to occur between 2020 and 2025. In addition, the City will have extra surface water supply made available in the year 2011. The City owns water rights to the Kern River that are currently under contract to agricultural users that expires in 2011. At that time the City will have an additional 70,000 AF/yr (62.5 MGD) of surface water supplies available to meet urban water needs. According to the UWMP, the expiration of agricultural water contracts will return available water rights to the City of Bakersfield for municipal supply. The City of Bakersfield will evaluate future water supplies before entering into new agricultural contracts. If supply is not used, it can go into the “2800 Acres” groundwater recharge facility as a banked water account. If supply is deficient in any given year, water will be allocated from a banked water account to balance supply as a whole across the Domestic Water System service area. Finally, according to item #6 of the City of Bakersfield Statement of Water Resources Policy, “The City will continue to preserve its water City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 resources to provide for the future orderly growth of the City, and those benefits derived from the water rights and water properties acquired by the City from Tenneco-West, Inc. on December 22, 1976 shall remain dedicated to the residents and taxpayers within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Bakersfield.” Groundwater Supply The amount of precipitation and groundwater extraction affects groundwater levels in the area. Groundwater overdraft can occur when the amount of water removed from storage in a groundwater basin exceeds the amount of water added to the groundwater basin. According to the California Water Plan Update 2005, Volume 3, Chapter 8 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region prepared by the California Department of Water Resources, the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is currently overdrafted in average year and dry year conditions. The California Water Plan Update 2005 presents water portfolios for water years 1998 (wet), 2000 (average) and 2001 (dry). The total storage change in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region recorded a surplus of 701,000 AF in the wet year, a deficit of 1,682,000 AF in the average year, and a deficit of 4,256,000 AF in a dry year. The proposed Project site is located in the Kern County subbasin, which is only a portion of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. According to the report, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118 for the Kern County Subbasin, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources in 2006, the Kern County subbasin has an average supply volume of 1,534,000 AF/yr and an average demand of 1,400,300 AF/yr. This data is based on a groundwater model developed by the DWR using long-term water balance information from 1977 through 1998. Bulletin 118 identifies that the Kern County subbasin is not in overdraft. However, DWR notes that the calculation includes an estimated average subsurface inflow of 233,000 AF/yr. In comparison to the Kern County subbasin, the City of Bakersfield’s primary source of water for the domestic system is groundwater within the local basin. With the proposed Project being within the City of Bakersfield domestic system, the Urban Water Management Plan states “The Kern County subbasin is a well managed basin and should have sufficient groundwater supply over the next 30 years under single and multiple droughts.” The groundwater basin is not adjudicated. There are no restrictions on the City’s beneficial use of groundwater to supply domestic water for urban use; however, a positive water balance has been historically maintained by the City Water System. The City of Bakersfield is committed to limiting groundwater overdrafts by continuously balancing the City’s water demand and supply through storage of surplus volumes from wet years. The City has accomplished this through various groundwater banking, spreading, and recharging efforts over the years. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The annual recharge efforts have replenished groundwater levels through continued collaboration among several purveyors that direct excess water rights to the “2800 Acres.” When the annual recharge volumes are greater than the demand, the surplus volume is counted for groundwater banking. The latest City of Bakersfield Water Balance Report published in 2000, describes the different purveyors that have historically been involved in groundwater recharge efforts. This report provides data showing that the average balance from 1977 to 1995 (excess supply over demand) is 101,200 AF/yr, and that from 1977 through 1995, water supply exceeded water demand except for three years between 1990 and 1992. The groundwater aquifers in the City service area are recharged through several sources including the Kern River Channel, precipitation runoff, canal seepage, spreading/banking, and wastewater reclamation. Surface water supply sources include the Kern River, the Central Valley Project (via the Friant-Kern Canal), and the State Water Project (via the Cross Valley Canal). The City of Bakersfield’s primary means of recharging groundwater is through the Kern River Channel and canal seepage losses. In addition, the City operates the 2800-Acre Recharge Area for groundwater banking. During wet years or when surplus water is available, the City spreads water in the 2800-Acre Recharge Area for groundwater recharge. Groundwater recharge also occurs through regulation of Kern River water supplies through Bakersfield. The water banked in the 2800-Acre Recharge Area is extracted by recovery wells during dry years. This facility has about 200,000 acre-feet of groundwater accrued as of 2006 available for the City’s use during dry years.3 Current Groundwater Extractions According to the City’s 2007 UWMP data, a total of 38,679 AF/yr was pumped from groundwater wells in the Domestic Water System service area. This water was pumped from approximately 50 active groundwater production wells located throughout the service area. Future Groundwater Extractions The future water demands projected for the City of Bakersfield are provided in Table IV.O-4. These projected water demands are based on the analysis presented in the City of Bakersfield’s 2007 UWMP. The future water demands estimated in the UWMP were calculated using the projected average daily use for future years. The 2007 UWMP also estimates the percentage of the future demand that will be supplied by groundwater sources. The projections for population growth and total water deliveries were made for the following years up to 2035. 3 City of Bakersfield, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, dated November 2007, Table 7. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-4 Future Water Demands by Year 2011 2015 2020 2025 2035 Population (Within the City of Bakersfield’s City Water System Service Area) 129,800 141,000 157,000 174,000 212,160 Demand – Average Daily Use (AF) 43,187 47,264 53,089 59,278 73,170 Percentage Supplied by Groundwater 73% 55% 59% 47% 57% Source: Quad Knopf, July 2009. Sufficiency of Supply The average depth to groundwater has shown a steady decline of about 2.6 ft/yr for the past 15 years. However, looking back 30 years, the average depth to groundwater is declining at a rate of 0.3 ft/yr. The early 1990’s show a steeper drop in groundwater levels as a result of a six-year drought. This trend was reversed by a wet cycle as evidenced by rising groundwater levels observed beginning in 1995. The groundwater data from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) reveals that the underlying groundwater basin is quickly capable of recovering from seasonal drops. The UWMP identified four sources of water to meet the projected domestic water demands of 2035 as listed in Table IV.O-5. The City of Bakersfield has over 160,000 AF/yr of surface water entitlements from the Kern River, and through water exchanges 5,000 AF/yr will be treated and supplied from the existing Northwest Treatment Plant, and an additional 10,000 AF/yr from a future southwest treatment plant. Local groundwater extraction wells within the underling basin accounts for 10,000 AF/yr from the “2800 Acres” and 41,670 AF/yr from the city service area. The State Water Project will allocate 6,500 AF/yr of treated surface water through KCWA ID4. Although available groundwater extractions from existing wells are currently higher than those planned for 2035, state water from ID4 will first be used to meet the average demands and if required groundwater extractions can be increased if water reliability becomes an issue. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-5 2035 Projected Sources of Water Supply within the City of Bakersfield Source AF/yr Kern River Surface Water 15,000 “2800 Acres” Groundwater Storage 10,000 Local Groundwater 41,670 State Water Project (ID4) 6,500 Total 73,170 The overall goal of the City is to maintain a balanced water supply, which occurs when the amount of water pumped from the basin is less than or equal to recharge into the basin. The City has maintained a positive balance of water recharge and banking versus groundwater extractions. The goal of maintaining a balanced water supply is not project specific, but is a general goal of the City Domestic Water System operations. Supply deficiencies are addressed in the UWMP, Appendix II, Water Shortage Contingency Plan. As of the 2007 UWMP, the City concluded that there will be no supply deficiencies within the next 30 years (through 2035). Further, the City has concluded that drought will not affect the ability to meet demands for water service to the City service area. The water supply available to the City and its customers is not currently subject to cutbacks. Although imported water supplies in the Bakersfield area may be subject to restrictions, the underlying groundwater reservoir can accommodate many years of extractions before becoming severely affected. In the event of a severe drought or water shortage, the City’s adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan outlines the reduction goals and procedures to be followed. In the UWMP, the City states that water supply to the users within the Domestic Water System service area will not be impacted by the single-dry and multiple-dry year scenarios. The City bases this statement on the City’s commitment to continue balancing the water supply. The UWMP states that: “Drought will not affect the ability to meet demands for water service to the City service area. The groundwater replenishment and storage programs have stored adequate supplies, although the effect of a prolonged drought would lower water levels, thereby causing a financial impact to the City and its water customers. Adding a base surface treated water supply could diminish these cost swings by minimizing the impact of groundwater fluctuations.” The City, in addition to its domestic water supply obtained from groundwater wells, replaces groundwater with recharge and banking operations. Surface water available in wet years is “banked” by spreading in City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 recharge basins. Then, in years of drought, that water is withdrawn from extraction wells. The City has enough water capacity that it can allocate surface water supply now under contract to agricultural users, and after 2011, “extra” water will be used for urban water uses and/or groundwater recharge operations to maintain a water balance over multiple years. Project Area Conditions Water Service Facilities The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department provides water service to the proposed Project site. The Domestic Water Division of the Department is primarily responsible for the oversight of the domestic water systems, which deliver water to the City’s residents and businesses. The proposed Project site would be served by an existing 8-inch water line located in Windsong Street, 12-inch water line located in Brimhall Road and a 20-inch water line in Coffee Road. Past and current development activity has occurred primarily on east side of the proposed Project site, east of Coffee Road. The remainder of the proposed Project site is vacant. On-site private groundwater wells currently supply water to the site. The water demand for the past and current activities have been estimated in Table IV.O-6 using criteria set forth in the City’s Standards and Specifications for Domestic Water Systems. Table IV.O-6 Estimated Past and Current Water Demand Activity Area (acres) Person/Unit Average Daily Unit Use (gpcd) Average Daily Unit Use (g/d/ft2) Annual Use (MG/yr) Maximum Daily Annual Use (AF/yr) Petroleum Refinery 45.7 15.05 205 -51.464 157.936 Trucking Company 6.0 15.05 205 -6.757 20.736 Conoco Philips Office 0.15 --0.2 0.476 1.462 Total 52 ---58.7 180.1 Source: Quad Knopf, July 2009. Prior to 1995, the proposed Project site had an estimated average daily urban water demand of approximately 180.1 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). After the closure of the on-site petroleum refinery in City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 1995, the site’s water use decreased to 22.2 AF/yr. The post-closure water consumption amount has been used as the existing water demand for the proposed Project site. Fire Flow Per City Fire Department guidelines, fire flow requirements for residential uses are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for one hour with 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure, and 1,000 gpm flow for two hours with 20 psi residual pressure. For commercial uses fire flow requirements are 2,000 to 3,500 gpm for 2 hours. The Water Department in cooperation with the City Fire Department would determine the requisite fire flow for specific commercial development as it occurs. Based on a fire flow test conducted by the City Fire Department on July 20, 2007, on the south side of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, there is a static pressure of 78 psi and a residual pressure of 74 psi at at a flow rate of 2,776 gpm. Regulatory Setting State Water Code In accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (SB 221), effective January 1, 2002, a water supply assessment (WSA) for the proposed Project is required. This requirement arises from the provisions which require that any development “project,” defined in Water Code Section 10912, which is subject to CEQA, requires a City or County to consider a water supply assessment for that development to determine whether projected water supplies available to the proposed Project are sufficient to meet the proposed Project’s anticipated water demand. The proposed Project meets the definition of a “project” as set forth in California Water Code Section 10912 because it proposes commercial development with greater than 500,000 square feet (sf) of floor space. Under SB 221, approval by the City or County of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply from the Bakersfield Water Board. The City of Bakersfield, as the proposed water supplier, must prepare the assessment within 90 days of the initial request. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the Project in October 2009 by Quad Knopf and has been included as Appendix R, Water Supply Assessment, of this Draft EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Local Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) An important document to be referenced for compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the City of Bakersfield Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The City Water Resources Department prepared an updated UWMP in November 2007 in accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 10610 et seq. and the provisions of AB 797 and AB 2661, which require revision and updating of the UWMP every five years. The proposed Project is located within the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water Division service area, which includes the UWMP service area, and is therefore covered by the City of Bakersfield UWMP. The City only extracts enough water to meet the annual demand. The City Water System has the capacity to pump about 96,645 acre-feet per year, which is about three times the demand of 38,679 acre-feet in 2006. “Future water supply for the City Water System will continue to include groundwater; however, as the City Water System grows, treated surface water supplies will be used to meet base demands and groundwater will be transitioned to meet peaking and emergency demands.” First, starting in 2007, the City Water System will replace 6,500 acre-feet per year of groundwater with treated surface water from the KCWA ID No. 4 treatment plant. In addition, the City will receive about 5,000 acre-feet per year of treated Kern River water from the Northwest Treatment Plant. Then, in 2012, the City will receive an additional 10,000 acre-feet per year of treated Kern River water from the Southwest Treatment Plant. Also, due to the expiration of the agricultural water district contract, the City will have a further 70,000 acre-feet per year of Kern River water available in 2012. The UWMP states that projected increases in demand or the use of water for the next 30 years are to be sufficiently met by both groundwater and treated surface water. The “2800 2800 Acres” Recharge Area has and will continue to be utilized to bank water during wet years and withdraw water during dry years. The “2800 Acres” Recharge Area has a balance of almost 200,000 acre-feet of water available for extraction. In addition, the City plans to construct new wells to provide addition pumping capacity to the City Water System. According to the UWMP, there have been no supply deficiencies in the City Domestic Water System since 1977 when the City Water System assumed ownership. The City Water System maintains a positive water balance within its groundwater basin by ensuring the water pumped from the basin is less than or equal to recharge into the basin. As a result of the management of its portion of the Kern County sub-basin, the City Water System has not experienced water supply deficiencies since 1977. With respect to future deficiencies, the UWMP states: “The City will continue to expand its service area and use the groundwater basin as the primary source of the City Water System’s water supply. Pumping City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 from the groundwater basin underlying the City Water System’s service area, in conjunction with the extraction of stored groundwater in the “2800 Acres”, and using treated surface water deliveries to replenish the basin will meet foreseeable water demands. A future drought will not affect the ability to meet demands for water service to the City Water System’s service area. Beginning in 2007, the City Water System will begin operation of 6 new wells and construction of an additional 6 new wells, which will provide an additional future well capacity of 14,400 gpm or 23,227 acre-feet. In addition, the City Water System will continue to drill new wells as needed. Therefore, the City Water System believes its water supplies will reliably meet demand, even under multiple dry years in the next 30 years.” In the UWMP, the City states that water supply to the users within the City’s service area will not be impacted by the single-dry and multiple-dry year scenarios. This statement is based on the City’s commitment to continued water balancing. The City compared the reliability of the water during a normal year, dry year, and multiple dry years in the next 30 years. The water supply and demand assessment concluded that the City will have sufficient and reliable water supplies, even under multiple dry years. Table IV.O-7 provides a summary of the City’s assessment. The UWMP presents predictions of the population growth and total water demand in five-year increments through 2035. The plan anticipates a population growth within the City Water System service area from 117,417 in 2006 to 212,160 by 2035. Water demand is expected to grow from 38,679 AF/yr in 2006 to 73,170 AF/yr in 2035. Table IV.O-7 Normal Year, Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year Assessment in Acre-Feet Average Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Water Years 2010 Water Demand 42,168 45,234 50,265 52,427 55,588 Surface Water Supply 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 169,332 166,266 161,235 159,073 155,912 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES 2015 Water Demand 47,264 50,701 56,340 58,763 62,305 Surface Water Supply 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 174,236 170,799 165,160 162,737 159,195 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES 2020 Water Demand 53,089 56,949 63,283 66,005 69,984 Surface Water Supply 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-7 Normal Year, Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year Assessment in Acre-Feet Average Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Water Years Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 168,411 164,551 158,217 155,495 151,516 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES 2025 Water Demand 59,278 63,588 70,661 73,700 78,143 Surface Water Supply 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 162,222 157,912 150,839 147,800 143,357 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES 2030 Water Demand 65,831 70,618 78,472 81,847 86,781 Surface Water Supply 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 155,669 150,882 143,028 139,653 134,719 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES 2035 Water Demand 73,170 78,490 87,220 90,971 96,456 Surface Water Supply 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 Groundwater Supply 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Excess Supply 148,330 143,010 134,280 130,529 125,044 Adequate Supply YES YES YES YES YES Groundwater Management Plan There is no groundwater management plan that affects the City’s use of groundwater from the Kern County subbasin within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Instead, the management of the water resources in the Kern County subbasin is based on measured and recorded recharge and banking operations. The City of Bakersfield owns and operates the “2800 Acres” recharge facility located within the Kern County subbasin. The water banked in the “2800 Acres” recharge facility comes from available Kern River surface water rights purchased by the City of Bakersfield from Tenneco West in 1976. Various Districts have adopted Ground Water Management Plans (GWMPs) within their Districts, but no GWMP has been adopted for the subbasin. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Water Conservation The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), General Order No. 103 encourages metered volume sales of water unless specific authorization has been granted otherwise. The City is not under the jurisdiction of the CPUC, but has patterned its service standards after General Order No. 103, and its water system is metered to all of its service connections except fire hydrants. The City encourages conservation and has adopted a number of ordinances related to water conservation. These ordinances are summarized in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Theses ordinances include: limitations on running water onto sidewalks, public streets, or alleyways; requiring property owners to turn off irrigation water before it overflows into gutters; and reserves the option for the City to discontinue service where negligent or wasteful use of water exists. When water waste is visible, the property owner receives a “Waste of Water Notice.” The City has adopted the California Administrative Code, Title 24, which relates specifically to energy conservation in new building construction, but also includes provisions for low flow fixtures, which in turn affect water usage through conservation. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets forth goals and policies to ensure that utilities and service systems have an adequate capacity to service future projects. This includes requiring all new developments to have an adequate water supply and that available water resources are conserved. Additionally, the City requires that all new development pay a pro rata share of the cost of expansion as necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology To determine the environmental constraints, demands, and requirements related to the potential for access and utility infrastructure impacts, plan and substructure maps for utilities in and around the proposed Project site were reviewed. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would require new or expanded entitlements. (c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts to storm water drainage facilities are discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR and therefore, the subsequent analysis focuses on the first two thresholds listed above. Project Design Features The following proposed Project Design features have been incorporated into the proposed Project with respect to water utility systems to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • To the extent feasible, the proposed Project would implement the following water conservation practices: o Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment including low-flush toilets and urinals; o Efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems that use moisture sensors; o Self-closing valves for faucets and drinking fountains for commercial applications; o Low water use/drought tolerant landscaping where appropriate; o Water efficient ice machines, dishwashers, and clothes washers and any other washing appliances; o Cooling towers recirculating system; o Public information/awareness on water conservation via bathroom stickers, table tents, etc.; City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 o Water efficient technologies and practices in any new facilities; and o Limit irrigation to low-heat hours (e.g., morning and/or evening hours) to reduce water losses from evaporation to the extent feasible. Project Impacts Water Demand The water demand for the proposed Project has been estimated based on criteria set forth in the City of Bakersfield, Water Resources Department, Domestic Water Division’s Southwest Bakersfield Water Supply Study (Water Supply Study), dated April 2007. Domestic water demand in the Water Supply Study was based on a review of the service area’s past yearly total domestic use, the number of domestic connections, and an average person’s use per unit. The Water Supply Study revealed an average per capita domestic water use of 205 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Proposed Project demand was determined assuming an average of 3.02 persons per single-and multi-family unit. The projected water demand for the commercial and mixed-use commercial uses for the proposed project were also taken from the Water Supply Study at 0.2 gallons per day per square foot (g/day/ft²) and 3.0 feet per year (ft/yr), respectively. The projected water demands for each proposed General Plan land use designation and for each development phase are shown in Table IV.O-8. The Project has an average projected water demand of approximately 803 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) at Project build-out. The proposed Project would result in a net increase of onsite water demand of approximately 781 AF/yr due to cessation of existing uses. Water demand will vary depending on weather, use of water saving plumbing, cost of water and water conservation. Future demand for in-house use is expected to decline due to the use of low flow toilets, shower heads, appliances, and other water-saving features. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-8 Proposed Project Water Use Proposed Land Use Gross Area (acres) Commercial (square feet) Units Person /Unit* Average Daily Unit Use (gpcd) Average Daily Unit Use (g/day/ft²) Average Daily Unit Use (ft/yr) Annual Use (MG/yr) Annual Use (AF/yr) Phase I (2015) Low Density Residential High Density Residential General Commercial Mixed Use Commercial MUC a Total 0 0 0 83 20 103 ---1,000,000 -1,000,000 ------3.02 3.02 ---205 205 -----0.2 0.2 -----3.0 ---73.0 19.55 92.6 ---224.0 60.0 284.0 Phase II (2035) Low Density Residential High Density Residential General Commercial Mixed Use Commercial MUC a Total 0 0 49 99 20 168 --600,000 1,200,000 -1,800,000 ------3.02 3.02 ----205 205 -----0.2 0.2 -----3.0 --43.8 87.6 19.55 151.0 --134.43 268.85 60.0 463.3 Phase III (2035) Low Density Residential High Density Residential General Commercial Mixed Use Commercial MUC a a Total 19 24 71 121 20 255 --800,000 1,200,000 -2,000,000 80 345 ---425 3.02 3.02 ----205 205 -----0.2 0.2 -----3.0 18.08 77.96 58.4 87.6 19.55 261.6 55.48 239.25 179.24 268.85 60.0 802.8 Total Water Demand at Project Buildout (2035) Notes: (a) MUC – Mixed Use Commercial land use within the transmission corridor. Source: Quad Knopf, July 2009. The historical groundwater elevation trends show that the groundwater aquifer has sufficient capacity and storage available for the proposed Project for a multi-year period including groundwater recharge and extraction. Although, the Kern County subbasin is currently reported as being in overdraft, the City of Bakersfield’s investigation has shown that the portion of the basin underlying the City is not in overdraft. This is largely due to the recharge efforts of the City that help recover and prevent overdraft. As shown in Table IV.O-9, the City has 200,000 AF of annual water supply available as of 2006 (as reported in 2007). The current demand for the City’s service area is 38,679 AF. The future demand for the City’s service area in 2035 is forecasted to be 73,170 AF/yr. The proposed Project requires a net increase of approximately 781 AF/yr at Project buildout. The proposed Project’s approximate water demand by development phase is as follows: (1) Phase I – 284.0 AF/yr; (2) Phase II – 463.3 AF/yr; and (3) Phase III – 802.8 AF/yr. As the proposed Project’s demand for water is approximately one percent of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the available water supply at Project buildout, the proposed Project would not significantly change conditions throughout the overall basin or sub-basin groundwater balance. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-9 Supply and Demand Comparison in Acre-Feet per Year Kern River Entitlements 2006 2015 2035 Supply – Groundwater Storage a 200,000 200,000 200,000 Supply – Treated Surface Water b 0 21,500 21,500 Total Supply 200,000 221,500 221,500 Demand – (Excluding Project Demand) c 38,679 47,264 73,170 Demand – (Including Project Demand) c 38,679 47,548 47,548 73,973 Projected Access Supply Including Project 161,321 173,952 147,527 Available Infrastructure Well Capacity 96,645 119,872 119,872 Available Surface Water for Recharge d 43,200 113,200 113,200 Notes: (a) Amount of water storage available for extraction and use by the City of Bakersfield in 2006, as per the City of Bakersfield’s UWMP and assuming City’s water balance efforts keep the supply constant. (b) Treated surface water from the Northwest and Southwest Treatment Plants and the KCWA’s ID No 4. (c) Demand is based on average daily use flows. (d) Water will be available due to the expiration of a contracted for irrigation district use. Source: Quad Knopf, July 2009. Fire Flow Per City Fire Department guidelines, fire flow requirements for residential uses are 500 gallons per minute (gpm) flow for one hour with 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure, and 1,000 gpm flow for two hours with 20 psi residual pressure. For commercial uses fire flow requirements are 2,000 to 3,500 gpm for 2 hours. The Water Department in cooperation with the City Fire Department would specify the requisite fire flow value as specific commercial developments are constructed. Based on a fire flow test conducted by the City’s Fire Department on July 20, 2007 on the south side of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road, there is a static pressure of 78 psi and a residual pressure of 74 psi at a flow rate of 2,776 gpm. A projection of pressure to flow rate shows that the maximum commercial flow rate of 3,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours can be provided. The volume of flow required to meet the maximum 3,500 gpm flow rate for two hours is 420,000 gallons which is approximately 1.29 AF. As discussed, this volume is available to the City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 proposed Project site. Therefore, there is sufficient water volume to serve the proposed Project’s fire flow demands and Project impacts would be less than significant. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan As discussed previously and in Table IV.O-10 below, the proposed Project would have an adequate water supply and would conserve available water resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Project impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-10 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MBGP Public Services and Facilities Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency General Utility Services Policy 5: Require all new development to pay its pro rata share of the cost of necessary expansion in municipal utilities, facilities and infrastructure for which it generates demand and upon which it is dependent. Consistent. Appropriate fees would be applied to the development of the proposed Project site. As proposed, the Project will provide all required utilities, facilities, and infrastructure on-site and no new expansion of off-site utilities, facilities, or infrastructure is required. Water Distribution Policy 3: Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available. Consistent. The City of Bakersfield has an adequate supply of water to serve the proposed development of the Project site. Conservation/Water Resources Goal 1: Conserve and augment the available water resources of the planning area. Consistent. The proposed Project incorporates water conservation measures. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2008. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would increase water demand. However, as determined by the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed Project and other projected demands included in the UWMP. As shown in Table IV.O-11, the related projects would use approximately 12,865,746 gpd of water. In combination with the approximately 696,769 gpd (781 AF/year x 892.15 gpd) of the Project, the total cumulative water use would be 13,562,515 gpd or 13.6 MGD. This is less than one percent of the expected available 2035 supply of approximately 198 MGD (221,500 AF/yr divided by 1,120 MGD). Therefore, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project and related projects from existing entitlements and resources and City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-11 Cumulative Water Generation No. Project Description Size Water Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Water Use (gpd) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 96/1,000 sf 41,297 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 192/unit 231,552 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 192/unit 216,576 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 180/1,000 sf 11,761 5 Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du 192/unit 249,600 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 6,240 Single Family 1,280 du 192/unit 245,760 Multi-Family 120 du 192/unit 23,040 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 192/unit 193,920 Multi Multi Family 2,562 du 192/unit 491,904 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 96/1,000 sf 90,403 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 192/unit 61,056 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 192/unit 44,160 Light Industrial 41 ac 96/1,000 sf -10 Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du 192/unit 57,600 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac --Retail 402,930 sf 96/1,000 sf 38,681 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 192/unit 63,360 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 192/unit 31,488 Retail 95,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 9,120 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 192/unit 38,400 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 192/unit 67,200 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du 192/unit 847,104 Multi-Family 326 du 192/unit 62,592 Retail 501,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 48,096 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 96/1,000 sf 304,128 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 96,000 Hotel 300 rooms 156/room 46,800 19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac --20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 192/unit 2,112 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac 96/1,000 sf -22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 96/1,000 sf 22,655 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-11 Cumulative Water Generation No. Project Description Size Water Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Water Use (gpd) 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 44,640 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 96/1,000 sf 60,144 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 67,200 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 144,000 Single Family 9,000 du 192/unit 1,728,000 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 134,400 Single Family 4,871 du 192/unit 935,232 Multi Family 5,541 du 192/unit 1,063,872 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 96/1,000 sf 120,227 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 65,856 Office 877,740 sf 180/1,000 sf 157,993 Single Family 5,979 du 192/unit 1,147,968 Multi-Family 7,037 du 192/unit 1,351,104 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 96/1,000 sf 3,685 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 19,680 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 192/unit 3,840 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 192/unit 13,056 Commercial 10 ac --33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 192/unit 62,976 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 192/unit 51,840 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 192/unit 24,000 Commercial 160,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 15,360 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 96/1,000 sf 11,400 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 192/unit 384 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 192/unit 6,144 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 96/1,000 sf 19,617 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 21,984 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac 96/1,000 sf -41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac --42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 192/unit 89,280 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 192/unit 66,048 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 192/unit 33,024 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 14,400 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 192/unit 86,400 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 960 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-11 Cumulative Water Generation No. Project Description Size Water Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Water Use (gpd) 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 192/unit 14,400 Commercial 5 ac --49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac --50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 192/unit 345,600 Commercial 261,360 sf 96/1,000 sf 25,091 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 192/unit 74,880 Open Space 20 ac --52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 192/unit 67,584 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac 96/1,000 sf -54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 96/1,000 sf 21,981 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 16,800 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 96/1,000 sf 13,210 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 13,440 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf sf 96/1,000 sf 23,991 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 2,400 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 96/1,000 sf 5,414 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac --Commercial 307,098 sf 96/1,000 sf 29,481 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 19,200 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 7,680 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 96/1,000 sf 21,954 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 96/1,000 sf 4,182 Residential 203 du 192/unit 38,976 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 12,480 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 8,544 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 16,992 Office 52,000 sf 180/1,000 sf 9,360 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 96/1,000 sf 10,306 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 52,800 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 96/1,000 sf 14,400 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 96/1,000 sf 6,273 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 96/1,000 sf 11,291 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 96/1,000 sf 6,900 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 192/unit 8,640 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 192/unit 122,880 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du 192/unit 83,712 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 192/unit 58,560 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 192/unit 3,072 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 192/unit 1,536 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-11 Cumulative Water Generation No. Project Description Size Water Generation Rate (gpd) a,b Expected Water Use (gpd) 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 192/unit 415,872 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 192/unit 5,760 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 192/unit 10,560 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 192/unit 46,080 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 192/unit 6,144 Estimated Cumulative Water Total 12,865,746 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres a Source: Water generation rates are based on values provided by the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006. b All dwelling units assumed to be two-bedroom units as actual breakdown is unavailable. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as proposed Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to water. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3. SOLID WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Public Works Department Solid Waste Division is responsible for the provision and management of solid waste and recycling services in the City. Solid waste collected by the City is disposed of at three landfills that are operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. Solid waste is a mixture of items discarded as useless or unwanted arising from residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities. These wastes include construction/demolition as well as inert wastes. The general waste classifications utilized by the Kern County Department of Public Works include the following: • Non-hazardous solid waste consisting mostly of household garbage, commercial wastes, agricultural waste, and litter. • Special waste which is defined as any waste that requires special handling, includes infectious waste, pesticide containers, sewage sludge, oilfield waste, household hazardous waste and asbestos waste. • Designated waste is a waste that consists of, or contains, pollutants that could be released at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, or hazardous waste that has been granted a variance from hazardous waste management requirements. • Hazardous waste is a waste which because of its quantity, concentration, physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may either (a) cause or substantially contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. • Industrial wastes are hazardous and non-hazardous wastes produced by oil and gas extraction, pesticide, paper, petrochemical, rubber, plastics, electronics, and other industries. Construction and demolition generated waste (C&D) generally consists of heavy, inert material. This material creates challenges when disposed of in landfills as C&D waste is heavy, when compared with paper and plastic, and as a result is more difficult for counties and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 waste. For this reason, C&D waste has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream. As a result, projects that that generate C&D waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of a building, which allows the maximum use of the deconstructed materials for recycling in other construction projects and thus sends a minimum of the deconstruction material to landfills. The Bena Landfill, located at 2951 Neumarkel Road in Edison, California, is the primary landfill that serves the City and would serve the proposed Project. The landfill was opened in 1992 by the Kern County Waste Management Department as the first fully lined landfill within Metropolitan Bakersfield. The landfill is permitted for use in phases and is currently in Phase II, with approximately 27 years remaining. The landfill has a current maximum capacity of 70 million cubic yards. Based on the January 2005 Capacity Study, the remaining capacity of Phase II for the Bena Sanitary Landfill is 22,776,177 tons, which is expected to last until the 2031. Daily permit limits are 4,500 tons per day. At that time, the average daily tonnage was approximately 1,500 tons per day. Phases III and IV have been approved and are anticipated to individually have capacities of 50 plus million tons, totaling over 100 million tons of future solid waste capacity at Bena Canyon Landfill and will provide capacity until approximately year 2070. According to the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department Solid Waste Division, residential land uses on average, create 1,460 pounds (.73 tons) of solid waste per person per year, and nonresidential uses create 2,600 pounds (1.3 tons) of solid waste per person per year. Regulatory Setting State California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, were enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, AB 939 requires city and county jurisdictions to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by 2000. AB 939 also requires each city and county to promote source reduction, recycling, and safe disposal or transformation. Cities and counties are required to maintain the 50 percent diversion specified by AB 939 past the year 2000. AB 939 further requires each city to conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study and to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to describe how the city would reach the goals. The SRRE contains programs and policies for fulfillment of the goals of AB 939, including the above-noted diversion goals and must be updated annually to account for changing changing market and infrastructure City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 conditions. As projects and programs are implemented, the characteristics of the waste stream, the capacities of the current solid waste disposal facilities, and the operational status of those facilities are upgraded, as appropriate. California cities and counties are required to submit annual reports to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to update their progress toward the AB 939 goals (i.e., source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe land disposal). In 2003, the City of Bakersfield achieved the 50 percent diversion goal through waste diversion and recycling programs. Local Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan sets forth goals and policies to ensure that utilities and service systems have an adequate capacity to service future projects. This requires that all new development pay a pro rata share of the cost of expansion as necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology To determine the environmental constraints, demands, and requirements related to the potential for access and utility infrastructure impacts, plan and substructure maps for utilities in and around the proposed Project site were reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. (b) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Design Features The following proposed Project Design features have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • During construction, the Contractor would separate all Project construction debris and construction-related debris into recyclable and nonrecyclable items. All recyclable debris would be transported to appropriate recycling facilities so as to reduce waste disposed of at County landfills. Additionally, recyclable materials and materials consistent with the waste-reducing goals of the City of Bakersfield would be used in all aspects of construction, when possible. Project Impacts The Kern County Waste Management Department and the City of Bakersfield anticipate that the Bena landfill has the capacity to serve the proposed Project in the long term.4 As shown in Table IV.O-12 the proposed Project would result in an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 21 tons per day at Project buildout. The proposed Project’s total solid waste generation by development phase is as follows: (1) Phase I – 9 tons/day; (2) Phase II – 7 tons/day; and (3) Phase III – 5 tons/day. Solid waste generation at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the daily available capacity of the Bena landfill. Therefore, the landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs for each development phase as well as at Project buildout. Therefore, potential Project impacts would be less than significant. 4 Correspondence with Nancy Ewert, Kern County Waste Management Department dated March 13, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-12 Estimated Project Operational Solid Waste Generation Land Use Persons Generation Rate (lbs/person/year) Total (tons/year) Total (tons/day) Phase I (2015) Residential Non Residential -2,400 1,400 2,600 -3,120 -8.5 Total 2,400 -3,120 8.5 Phase II (2035) Residential Non Residential -2,000 1,400 2,600 -2,600 -7.1 Total 2,000 -2,600 7.1 Phase III (2035) Residential Non Residential 1,284 800 1,400 2,600 899 1,040 2.5 2.8 Total 2,084 -1,939 5.3 Proposed Project Total 7,659 20.9 Note: Non Residential persons include all employees. Source: City of Bakersfield Public Works Department Solid Waste Division. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan As discussed previously and in Table IV.O-13 below, the proposed Project would ensure adequate solid waste disposal services. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Project impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-13 Project Consistency with Relevant Goals and Policies of the MGBP Public Services and Facilities Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Consistency Solid Waste Goal 1: Ensure the provision of adequate solid waste disposal services to meet the demand for these services in the Planning area. Consistent. The City has adequate capacity in the Bena Landfill to serve the proposed Project. Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, March 2008. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in solid waste generation. However, Kern County anticipates that the Bena Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in demand.5 As shown in Table IV.O-14, the related projects would generate approximately 281 tons per day of solid waste. In combination with the 21 tons per day) generated by the proposed Project, the total cumulative solid waste generation would be 302 tons per day, which can be accommodated by the existing landfill capacity. This is approximately two percent of the permitted daily capacity of the Bena landfill. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-14 Cumulative Solid Waste Generation No. Project Description Size Solid Waste Generation Rate (lbs/day) a,b Expected Solid Waste Flow (lbs/day) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 13/1,000 sf 5,592 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 5.47/unit 6,597 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 5.47/unit 6,170 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 13/1,000 sf 849 5 Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du 5.47/unit 7,111 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 845 Single Family 1,280 du 5.47/unit 7,002 Multi-Family 120 du 5.47/unit 656 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 5.47/unit 5,525 Multi Family 2,562 du 5.47/unit 14,014 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 13/1,000 sf 12,242 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 5.47/unit 1,739 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 5.47/unit 1,258 Light Industrial 41 ac --10 Deberti (06-0494) Single Family Family 300 du 5.47/unit 1,641 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac --Retail 402,930 sf 13/1,000 sf 5,238 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 5.47/unit 1,805 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 5.47/unit 897 5 Correspondence with Nancy Ewert, Kern County Waste Management Department dated March 13, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-14 Cumulative Solid Waste Generation No. Project Description Size Solid Waste Generation Rate (lbs/day) a,b Expected Solid Waste Flow (lbs/day) Retail 95,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,235 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 5.47/unit 1,094 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 5.47/unit 1,915 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du 5.47/unit 24,134 Multi-Family 326 du 5.47/unit 1,783 Retail 501,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 6,513 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 13/1,000 sf 41,184 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 13,000 Hotel 300 rooms 5.47/room 1,641 19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac --20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 5.47/unit 60 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac --22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 13/1,000 sf 3,068 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 6,045 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 13/1,000 sf 8,145 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 9,100 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 19,500 Single Family 9,000 du 5.47/unit 49,230 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 18,200 Single Family 4,871 du 5.47/unit 26,644 Multi Family 5,541 du 5.47/unit 30,309 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 13/1,000 sf 16,281 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 8,918 Office 877,740 sf 13/1,000 sf 11,411 Single Family 5,979 du 5.47/unit 32,705 Multi-Family 7,037 du 5.47/unit 38,492 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 13/1,000 sf 499 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,665 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 5.47/unit 109 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 5.47/unit 372 Commercial 10 ac --33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 5.47/unit 1,794 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 5.47/unit 1,477 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 5.47/unit 684 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-14 Cumulative Solid Waste Generation No. Project Description Size Solid Waste Generation Rate (lbs/day) a,b Expected Solid Waste Flow (lbs/day) Commercial 160,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,080 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,544 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 5.47/unit 11 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 5.47/unit 175 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,657 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,977 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac --41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac --42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 5.47/unit 2,544 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 5.47/unit 1,882 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 5.47/unit 941 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,950 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 5.47/unit 2,462 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf 62.5/1,000 sf 625 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 5.47/unit 410 Commercial 5 ac --49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac --50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 5.47/unit 9,846 Commercial 261,360 sf 13/1,000 sf 3,398 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 5.47/unit 2,133 Open Space 20 ac --52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 5.47/unit 1,925 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac --54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,977 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,275 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,789 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,820 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf 13/1,000 sf 3,249 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 325 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 13/1,000 sf 733 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac --Commercial 307,098 sf 13/1,000 sf 3,992 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,600 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,040 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,973 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 13/1,000 sf 566 Residential 203 du 5.47/unit 1,110 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,690 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-14 Cumulative Solid Waste Generation No. Project Description Size Solid Waste Generation Rate (lbs/day) a,b Expected Solid Waste Flow (lbs/day) 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,157 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 2,301 Office 52,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 676 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,396 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 7,150 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,950 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 13/1,000 sf 849 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 13/1,000 sf 1,529 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 13/1,000 sf 934 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 5.47/unit 246 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 5.47/unit 3,501 77 Beech Street Residential Residential 436 du 5.47/unit 2,385 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 5.47/unit 1,668 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 5.47/unit 88 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 5.47/unit 44 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 5.47/unit 11,848 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 5.47/unit 164 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 5.47/unit 301 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 5.47/unit 1,313 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 5.47/unit 175 Estimated Cumulative Solid Waste Total 561,762 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres a Source: Solid Waste generation rates are based on values provided by CIWMB 2004. b All dwelling units assumed to be two-bedroom units as actual breakdown is unavailable. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as proposed Project impacts are less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to solid waste. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-45 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4. ELECTRICITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Electricity is one of the major types of energy consumed within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Most of the City’s electrical energy is consumed by residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and transportation uses. Electric power supply and the distribution of electricity for the proposed Project area are furnished by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). PG&E is an independently owned utility and provides electrical power service throughout California. Power distributed by PG&E is derived from any of PG&E’s generating plants, which provide electricity by hydropower, gas-fired steam, or nuclear energy or from any of 400+ plants owned by independent power producers or co-generators, and sold to PG&E for resale to consumers. Power can also be purchased from out-of-state generators. The electricity is carried carried in bulk over a network or “grid” of high-voltage transmission lines that connect power plants to substations. Substations use transformers to "step down" the voltage of the electricity to lower levels to be ultimately used by consumers such as residential, business, and commercial areas. Power conducted through PG&E’s distribution system uses electricity purchased through the California Power Exchange, which is the electricity marketplace for about 80 percent of California’s electricity customers. The rate of electricity consumption, generally referred to as “demand” or “load,” is what power grid operators are most concerned with when deciding whether electricity generation and transmission resources are adequate to serve consumers. Peak electricity demand, a measure of the largest electricity usage rate during a specified period, is usually in terms of the demand over 1 hour. Measured in megawatts, a single megawatt is generally enough power to meet the expected electricity needs of 1,000 typical California homes. The proposed Project falls within the Urban Bakersfield Northwest Distribution Planning Area that is served by four PG&E substations. Current service capacity of these four stations is approximately 205 megawatts. The existing power lines (50–200 kilovolts) in the area were constructed between 1920 and 1940. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-46 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 There are existing power transmission lines in a 330 foot wide right-of-way west of Coffee Road. These lines would not directly provide any power service to the proposed Project. There are existing underground distribution systems in and adjacent to the proposed Project site within the streets and BNSF Railway right-of-way. The existing distribution voltages in the proposed Project area are 12 KV and 21 KV. There is an existing substation just north of the proposed Project site on Coffee Road. Existing facilities on site currently utilize minimal amounts of electricity. Regulatory Setting State Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and non-residential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings provided these standards meet or exceed those provided in Title 24 guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology To determine the environmental constraints, demands, and requirements related to the potential for access and utility infrastructure impacts, plan and substructure maps for utilities in and around the proposed Project site were reviewed. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-47 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require substantial alteration to or construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts; and/or (b) Substantially reduce or constrain capacities of utility service providers. Project Design Features The following proposed Project Design features have been incorporated into the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the Project: • The Project Applicant would coordinate with PG&E staff early in the planning stages to ensure that adequate service and facilities are incorporated into the proposed Project. Project Impacts As shown in Table IV.O-15 the proposed Project would result in an increase of 425,543 kilowatts per year of electricity demand. According to PG&E, there are no existing service problems or deficiencies.6 PG&E has indicated that there is available supply and distribution capacity to meet the proposed Project’s demands attributable to each development phase as well as at Project buildout.7 However, PG&E cannot definitively determine whether existing lines can provide power to the proposed Project at this time. This determination would be made by PG&E based on the actual power demand for the proposed Project. If the existing system can accommodate proposed Project demand, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. If the existing facilities are not able to accommodate proposed Project demand, there is a potential for impact. The proposed Project Design Feature and Mitigation Measure O-3 are proposed to reduce this potential Project impact to a less than significant level. 6 Correspondence with Tom Aguilar, PG&E, dated April 11, 2007. 7 Ibid. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-48 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As part of the proposed Project, the transmission corridor would be developed with surface parking, streets, open space, and drainage areas. These Project elements would not interfere with current electrical distribution associated with the electrical towers in the transmission corridor. Table IV.O-15 Proposed Project Demand for Electricity Proposed Land Use Land Use Units Demand Rate (kilowatts per unit per year)a Project Demand (kilowatts per year) Phase I (2015) Low Density Residential b Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial d Parks Total --664 -2.5 2.5 250 300 --206,000 -206,000 Phase II (2035) Low Density Residential b Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial d Parks Total --520 -2.5 2.5 250 300 --130,000 -130,000 Phase III (2035) Low Density Residential b Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial d Parks Total 80 345 352 1.6 e 2.5 2.5 250 300 200 863 88,000 480 89,543 Estimated Total Project Demand at Project Buildout 425,543 Notes: (a) Demand rate based on Rosedale Ranch EIR, City of Bakersfield (b) Low density residential is less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per acre. (c) Low-Medium density residential is greater than 7.26 dwelling units per acre and less than or equal to 17.42 dwelling units per acre. (d) Based on 8 units per acre of commercial development. (e) Assumes 4 acres of parks. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in electrical demand resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. However, PG&E anticipates that it would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in electrical demand.8 8 Correspondence with Tom Aguilar, PG&E, dated April 11, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-49 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 As shown in Table IV.O-16, the related projects would use approximately 578,964,800 kilowatt hours per year of electricity. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.O-16 Cumulative Electricity Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (KWHours/Year) a,b Total Electricity Consumption (KWHours/Year) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 13.55 5,828,871 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 5626.50/unit 6,785,559 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 5626.50/unit 6,346,692 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 13.55 885,357 5 Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 1,300 du 5626.50/unit 7,314,450 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 13.55 880,750 Single Family 1,280 du 5626.50/unit 7,201,920 Multi-Family 120 du 5626.50/unit 675,180 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 5626.50/unit 5,682,765 Multi Family 2,562 du 5626.50/unit 14,415,093 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 13.55 12,760,035 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 5626.50/unit 1,789,227 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 5626.50/unit 1,294,095 Light Industrial 41 ac --10 Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du 5626.50/unit 1,687,950 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac --Retail 402,930 sf 13.55 5,459,702 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 5626.50/unit 1,856,745 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 5626.50/unit 922,746 Retail 95,000 sf 13.55 1,287,250 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 5626.50/unit 1,125,300 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 5626.50/unit 1,969,275 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 4,412 du 5626.50/unit 24,824,118 Multi-Family 326 du 5626.50/unit 1,834,239 Retail 501,000 sf 13.55 6,788,550 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 13.55 42,926,346 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 13.55 13,550,000 Hotel 300 rooms 13.55 4,065 19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac 10.5 1,890 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-50 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-16 Cumulative Electricity Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (KWHours/Year) a,b Total Electricity Consumption (KWHours/Year) 20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 5626.50/unit 61,892 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac --22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 13.55 3,197,692 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 13.55 6,300,750 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 13.55 8,489,075 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 13.55 9,485,000 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 13.55 20,325,000 Single Family 9,000 du 5626.50/unit 50,638,500 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 13.55 18,970,000 Single Family 4,871 du 5626.50/unit 27,406,682 Multi Family 5,541 du 5626.50/unit 31,176,437 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 13.55 16,969,586 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 13.55 9,295,300 Office 877,740 sf 13.55 11,893,377 Single Family 5,979 du 5626.50/unit 33,640,844 Multi-Family 7,037 du 5626.50/unit 39,593,681 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 13.55 520,171 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 13.55 2,777,750 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 5626.50/unit 112,530 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 5626.50/unit 382,602 Commercial 10 ac --33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 5626.50/unit 1,845,492 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 5626.50/unit 1,519,155 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 5626.50/unit 703,313 Commercial 160,000 sf 13.55 2,168,000 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 13.55 1,609,063 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 5626.50/unit 11,253 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 5626.50/unit 180,048 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 13.55 2,768,902 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 13.55 3,102,950 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac --41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac -- City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-51 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-16 Cumulative Electricity Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (KWHours/Year) a,b Total Electricity Consumption (KWHours/Year) 42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 5626.50/unit 2,616,323 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 5626.50/unit 1,935,516 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 5626.50/unit 967,758 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 13.55 2,032,500 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 5626.50/unit 2,531,925 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf 4.35 43,500 48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 5626.50/unit 421,988 Commercial 5 ac --49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac --50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 5626.50/unit 10,127,700 Commercial 261,360 sf 13.55 3,541,428 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 5626.50/unit 2,194,335 Open Space 20 ac 10.5 210 52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 5626.50/unit 1,980,528 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac --54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 13.55 3,102,489 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 13.55 2,371,250 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 13.55 1,864,602 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 13.55 1,897,000 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf 13.55 3,386,213 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 13.55 338,750 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 13.55 764,220 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac --Commercial 307,098 sf 13.55 4,161,178 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 13.55 2,710,000 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 13.55 1,084,000 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 13.55 3,098,750 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 13.55 590,238 Residential 203 du 5626.50/unit 1,142,180 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 13.55 1,761,500 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 13.55 1,205,950 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 13.55 2,398,350 Office 52,000 sf 13.55 704,600 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 13.55 1,454,633 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 13.55 7,452,500 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 13.55 2,032,500 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 13.55 885,357 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 13.55 1,593,643 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-52 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-16 Cumulative Electricity Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (KWHours/Year) a,b Total Electricity Consumption (KWHours/Year) 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 13.55 973,893 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 5626.50/unit 253,193 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 5626.50/unit 3,600,960 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du 5626.50/unit 2,453,154 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 5626.50/unit 1,716,083 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 5626.50/unit 90,024 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 5626.50/unit 45,012 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 5626.50/unit 12,186,999 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 5626.50/unit 168,795 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 5626.50/unit 309,458 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 5626.50/unit 1,350,360 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 5626.50/unit 180,048 Estimated Cumulative Electricity Consumption Total 578,964,800 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres a Source: Electricity generation rates are based on values provided by the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006. b All dwelling units assumed to be two-bedroom units as actual breakdown is unavailable. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. MITIGATION MEASURES O-3. If the existing facilities are not able to accommodate Project demand, measures shall be developed in coordination with PG&E and may include one or both of the following: a. Addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation; and/or b. Construction of a new sub-station within the Project site. A new substation would require a new feed from the existing transmission lines. Construction of a new substation would also require approval by the City of Bake rsfield. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-53 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With incorporation of Mitigation Measure O-3, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to electricity. Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-54 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5. NATURAL GAS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural gas service for the proposed Project site is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (the Gas Company). Based on information and maps received from Mike Bowling with the Gas Company, there is an existing 4-inch gas line in Brimhall Road west of El Toro Viejo Road. There are no existing service problems or deficiencies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Methodology To determine the environmental constraints, demands, and requirements related to the potential for access and utility infrastructure impacts, plan and substructure maps for utilities in and around the proposed Project site were reviewed. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with guidance provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact if it were to result in one or more of the following: (a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require substantial alteration to or construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts; and/or (b) Substantially reduce or constrain capacities of utility service providers. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-55 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Design Features Project design, construction, and operations would occur in accordance with the following proposed Project Design Features, which have been incorporated into the design of the proposed Project to lessen or avoid possible adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project: • The proposed Project would provide an internal distribution system within proposed Project streets that would include piping and service laterals. • Each of the proposed Project's buildings would comply with the State Energy Conservation Standards for New Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code), to reduce energy consumption levels for new buildings, consistent with the requirements of state law. Project Impacts The Gas Company anticipates sufficient capacity to accommodate the natural gas demand of the proposed Project from existing gas mains in and around the proposed Project area.9 As shown in Table IV.O-17 the proposed Project would result in an increased natural gas demand of 23.5 million cubic feet per day. The Gas Company has indicated that there is available supply to meet the proposed Project’s demands during each development phase as well as at Project buildout. Table IV.O-17 Proposed Project Demand for Natural Gas Proposed Land Use Acres Demand Rate (cubic feet per acre per hour)a Project Demand (cubic feet per acre per day) Phase I (2015) Low Density Residential b Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial Parks Total --83 -500 500 5,000 100 --9,960,000 -9,960,000 Phase II (2035) Low Density Residential b Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial Parks Total --65 -500 500 5,000 100 --7,800,000 -7,800,000 Phase III (2035) Low Density Residential b 19 500 228,000 9 Correspondence with Louise Brown, Southern California Gas Company dated May 12, 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-56 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-17 Proposed Project Demand for Natural Gas Proposed Land Use Acres Demand Rate (cubic feet per acre per hour)a Project Demand (cubic feet per acre per day) Low-Medium Density Residential c General and Mixed Use Commercial Parks Total 24 44 4 500 5,000 100 288,000 5,280,000 9,600 5,805,600 Estimated Total Project Demand at Project Buildout 23,565,600 Notes: (a) Demand rate based on Rosedale Ranch EIR, City of Bakersfield (b) Low density residential is less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per acre. (c) Low-Medium density residential is greater than 7.26 dwelling units per acre and less than or equal to 17.42 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project, with the exception of a limited number of connections, would not require additions to or modifications of the existing off-site distribution system. Notwithstanding, the proposed Project would require require the upgrading and expansion of the on-site system, which is incorporated into the proposed Project as a Project Design Feature. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require substantial alteration to or construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. Further, existing capacity is available to serve the proposed Project, and thus, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce or constrain the Gas Company’s capacity. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in the demand for natural gas resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. Notwithstanding, the Gas Company anticipates that they would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in natural gas demand.10 As shown in Table IV.O-18, the related projects would use approximately 394,904,049 cubic feet per month of natural gas. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, with full compliance with applicable requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 10 Correspondence with Louise Langford, Southern California Gas Company dated March 22, 2007. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-57 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-18 Cumulative Natural Gas Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (cubic feet/month) a,b Total Natural Gas Consumption (cubic feet/month) 1 Gosford Village (02-0030) Commercial 430,175 sf 3/sf 1,290,525 2 SB Capital (this is a part of Ashe No. 4 below) Single Family 1,206 du 6,665/unit 8,037,990 3 Ashe No. 4 Annexation (05-0519) Single Family 1,128 du 6,665/unit 7,518,120 4 Whitney Trust (05-1358) Office 65,340 sf 3/sf 196,020 5 Bakersfield-Taft LLC (05-1420) Single Family 1,300 du 6,665/unit 8,664,500 6 The Canyon (03-0337) Commercial 65,000 sf 3/sf 195,000 Single Family 1,280 du 6,665/unit 8,531,200 Multi-Family 120 du 6,665/unit 799,800 7 Stockdale Ranch (06-0168 & 09-0263) Single Family 1,010 du 6,665/unit 6,731,650 Multi Family 2,562 du 6,665/unit 17,075730 Commercial/Office 941,700 sf 3/sf 2,825,100 8 Lowry (06-0377) Single Family 318 du 6,665/unit 2,119,470 9 Pascoe (06-0463) Multi-Family 230 du 6,665/unit 1,532,950 Light Industrial 41 ac 3/sf 123 10 Deberti (06-0494) Single Family 300 du 6,665/unit 1,999,500 11 Sports Village (06-1002) Playing Fields 163 ac --Retail 402,930 sf 3/sf 1,208,790 12 Old River Road, LLC (06-1014) Single Family 330 du 6,665/unit 2,199,450 13 Minaberri (06-1031) Residential 164 du 6,665/unit 1,093,060 Retail 95,000 sf 3/sf 285,000 14 Bakersfield 19, LLC (06-1039) Residential 200 du 6,665/unit 1,333,000 15 KC Land Investors (06-1689) Residential 350 du 6,665/unit 2,332,750 16 Rio Bravo Ranch (06-1722) Single Family 4,412 du 6,665/unit 29,405,980 Multi-Family 326 du 6,665/unit 2,172,790 Retail 501,000 sf 3/sf 1,503,000 17 Saco Ranch (06-2247) Retail/Office/Industrial 3,167,996 sf 3/sf 9,503,988 18 Bakersfield Gateway/Woodmont Bakersfield (07-0655) Retail 1,000,000 sf 3/sf 3,000,000 Hotel 300 rooms --19 A & E Union (06-1681) Open Space 180 ac 100/ac 18,000 20 Don Juhase (07-0537) Multi-Family 11 du 6,665/unit 73,315 21 Big West Oil Refinery (Clean Fuels Expansion) Industrial 625 ac 5,000/ac c 3,125,000 22 Crossroads (07-2211) Retail 235,992 sf 3/sf 707,976 23 Shops at River Walk Retail 465,000 sf 3/sf 1,395,000 24 Intertex A/B Properties Retail 626,500 sf 3/sf 1,879,500 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-58 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-18 Cumulative Natural Gas Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (cubic feet/month) a,b Total Natural Gas Consumption (cubic feet/month) 25 Target/Castle & Cooke Industrial/Commercial Retail 700,000 sf 3/sf 2,100,000 26 McAlister Ranch Retail 1,500,000 sf 3/sf 4,500,000 Single Family 9,000 du 6,665/unit 59,985,000 27 Rosedale Ranch Retail 1,400,000 sf 3/sf 4,200,000 Single Family 4,871 du 6,665/unit 32,465,215 Multi Family 5,541 du 6,665/unit 36,930765 Commercial/Office 1,252,368 sf 3/sf 3,757,104 28 Old River Ranch Retail 686,000 sf 3/sf 2,058,000 Office 877,740 sf 3/sf 2,633,220 Single Family 5,979 du 6,665/unit 39,850,035 Multi-Family 7,037 du 6,665/unit 49,901,605 29 Hasmuth Amin (04-0434) Commercial 38,389 sf 3/sf 115,167 30 Marino & Associates (06-0380) Commercial 205,000 sf 3/sf 615,000 31 Marino & Associates (06-1688) Multi Family 20 du 6,665/unit 133,300 32 Marino & Associates (07-1077) Multi Family 68 du 6,665/unit 453,220 Commercial 10 ac --33 Summerland Apartments (07-1835) Multi Family 328 du 6,665/unit 2,186,120 34 Paul Rodriguez (07-1848) Multi Family 270 du 6,665/unit 1,799,550 35 Marino & Associates (07-1893) Multi Family 125 du 6,665/unit 831,125 Commercial 160,000 sf 3/sf 480,000 36 Eric Seric (08-0612) Commercial/Office 118,750 sf 3/sf 356,250 37 Kern County Builders Money Purchase Plan (08-1044) Multi Family 2 du 6,665/unit 13,330 38 Eric Seric/CNC Properties (08-1079) Multi Family 32 du 6,665/unit 213,280 Commercial/Office 204,347 sf 3/sf 613,041 39 Higher Ground Engineering (09-0023) Commercial/Office 229,000 sf 3/sf 687,000 40 Hagerman Properties (05-1575) Industrial 53 ac 5,000/ac c 265,000 41 Marino & Associates (06-0581) Residential 20 ac --42 Santa Barbara Capitol (07-1370) Residential 465 du 6,665/unit 3,099,225 43 MP Romero (07-1371) Residential 344 du 6,665/unit 2,292,760 44 Antongiovanni (07-1874) Residential 172 du 6,665/unit 1,146,380 45 Grub & Ellis (07-1806) Commercial 150,000 sf 3/sf 450,000 46 Morning 178 LLC (07-2329) Residential 450 du 6,665/unit 2,999,250 47 Structure Cast (07-1930) Industrial 10,000 sf --48 Mid Town (08-0491) Residential 75 du 6,665/unit 499,875 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-59 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-18 Cumulative Natural Gas Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (cubic feet/month) a,b Total Natural Gas Consumption (cubic feet/month) Commercial 5 ac --49 Citygate Christian Center (08-1036) Residential 6 ac --50 Guimarra (08-1746) Residential 1,800 du 6,665/unit 11,997,000 Commercial 261,360 sf 3/sf 784,080 51 Dunmore Communities (05-1377) Residential 390 du 6,665/unit 2,599,350 Open Space 20 ac 100/ac 2,000 52 Fairway Oaks South (09-0258) Residential 352 du 6,665/unit 2,346,080 53 Marino & Associates (09-0303) Industrial 8 ac 5000 40,000 54 Rosedale Target Retail 228,966 sf 3/sf 686,898 55 Rosedale Crossings Retail 175,000 sf 3/sf 525,000 56 Silver Creek Plaza (06-1052) Retail 137,609 sf 3/sf 412,827 57 Target (Valley Plaza Mall) Retail 140,000 sf 3/sf 420,000 58 Panama Walmart (02-0193) Commercial 249,905 sf 3/sf 749,715 59 Rosedale Square Commercial 25,000 sf 3/sf 75,000 60 Destination at Old Farm Commercial 56,400 sf 3/sf 169,200 61 99 Houghton LLC Mixed-Use 306 ac --Commercial 307,098 sf 3/sf 921,294 62 Garrone/McKinzie (07-0761) Retail 200,000 sf 3/sf 600,000 63 East Hills Mall (07-1541) Retail/Theater 80,000 sf 3/sf 240,000 64 Denela/DeWalt Retail 228,690 sf 3/sf 686,070 65 Neighborhood Development LLC Retail 43,560 sf 3/sf 130,680 Residential 203 du 6,665/unit 1,352,995 66 River Oaks Plaza Retail 130,000 sf 3/sf 390,000 67 South Mill Creek Mixed Use Retail 89,000 sf 3/sf 267,000 68 Yun Schestug/Pasquini Engineers Retail 177,000 sf 3/sf 531,000 Office 52,000 sf 3/sf 156,000 69 Allen Fakler Commercial 107,353 sf 3/sf 322,059 70 Panama Grove Commercial 550,000 sf 3/sf 1,650,000 71 SWC Taft & Stine Commercial 150,000 sf 3/sf 450,000 72 Porter & Associates Commercial 65,340 sf 3/sf 196,020 73 Dominguez/Cuevas (Afinar Civil Engineers) Commercial 117,612 sf 3/sf 352,836 74 Salvadore Chipres Commercial 71,874 sf 3/sf 215,622 75 Allen Road Land Development Residential 45 du 6,665/unit 299,925 76 Bakersfield Land Investment/McIntosh & Associates Residential 640 du 6,665/unit 4,265,600 77 Beech Street Residential 436 du 6,665/unit 2,905,940 78 Black Hawk Land Company Residential 305 du 6,665/unit 2,032,825 79 James Philips by DeWalt Corp Residential 16 du 6,665/unit 106,640 80 Jon Moule Residential 8 du 6,665/unit 53,320 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IV.O. Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.O-60 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table IV.O-18 Cumulative Natural Gas Generation No. Project Description Size Consumption Rate (cubic feet/month) a,b Total Natural Gas Consumption (cubic feet/month) 81 Kern Community College District Residential 2,166 du 6,665/unit 14,436,390 82 Mike Matuk/Marino Associates Residential 30 du 6,665/unit 199,950 83 Northwest Land & Development Residential 55 du 6,665/unit 366,575 84 Reina Ranch Residential 240 du 6,665/unit 1,599,600 85 Stonefield Development Residential 32 du 6,665/unit 213,280 Estimated Cumulative Natural Gas Consumption Total 439,134,865 Notes: du = dwelling units; st = students; sf = square feet; ac = acres a Source: Electricity generation rates are based on values provided by the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006. b All dwelling units assumed to be two-bedroom units as actual breakdown is unavailable. c Assumes 5,000 cubic feet/ac ac for Industrial uses, as generation rate is unavailable. Source: City of Bakersfield. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, July 2009. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required as Project impacts would be less than significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to natural gas. Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 IX. REFERENCES Air Quality Attainment Plan, adopted February 2006. Assembly Bill (AB) 2881, California Historic Register, 1992. Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June 29, 2007. SANDAG, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic, Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2008. California Air Resources Board, January, 2008 California Burrowing Owl Consortium, Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, April 1993. California Code of Regulations, Title 24. California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch, Special Animals, February 2006. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division (ESD), A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code, 1994. California Department of Transportation, 1998. California Endangered Species Act (CESA), 1984 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 To 2004, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF. California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006 California Environmental Quality Act California Hazardous Waste Control Law, Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, section 25100 et seq. California Health and Safety Code Section 25221 et seq. (Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Statute) California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), 1977 California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Website: http://www.cnps.org/rareplants/inventory/6thedition.htm. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, August 2003 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended California Wilderness Coalition, et. al. Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape. Website: http://www.calwild.org/resources/pubs/linkages/i ndex.htm. California Department of Transportation, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), 2006. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database occurrences for burrowing owl on the Oildale, Rosedale and Gosford quadrangles, April 2007. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database occurrences for San Joaquin pocket mouse on the Oildale, North of Oildale, Stevens and Knob Hill quadrangles. April 2007. City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works, Design Standards of the Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual., 2006 City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning and Zoning Application Fees. Website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/plann ing/pdfs2006/All_Fees.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2007. City of Bakersfield Development Services Department; CB Richard Ellis, Panama Lane and Gosford Village Economic Impact and Urban Decay Analysis, Bakersfield, California, January 2007. City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Development Services Department, Cumulative Projects Map. Website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/development_maps/pdfs_maps/CUM_PROJ.pdf. Accessed: September 12, 2007 City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Development Services Department, Active Tentative Tracts Map as of 8-13-07, Website: www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/development_maps/pdfs_maps/active_tent_tract.pdf. Accessed: September 12, 2007 City of Bakersfield Police Department, Website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police/traffic/Patrol.htm. Accessed March 13, 2007. City of Bakersfield Urban Water Management Plan. City of Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population Predictions (Values in Thousands) – Linear Regression Model, May 31, 2007. City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Planning Department, Bakersfield Population and Area, updated May 22, 2006, Website: http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/pdfs/Population_%20Housing_Data2006.pdf, Accessed: April 11, 2007. City of Bakersfield, Rosedale Ranch Project (GPA/ZC #04-0671) Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, March 2005. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) Connelly Warnings Act of 1988 County Solid Waste Management Plan Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan adopted July 18, 2006 CSA-17 Sewer Master Plan, November 2003, Revised March 2004 Emergency Response Plan, City of Bakersfield Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10 Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard Frost, N. 2006. San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield. A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University. December 2005. Google Earth, Version 3.0.0762; Microsoft Terraserver, Available: http://terraserver.microsoft.com, 2007. Government Code Section 65352.3 and SB 18, Tribal Consultation. Government Code Section 65962.5 Holland, California Department of Fish and Game, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, 1986. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Second Assessment Report (SAR), 1996. Kern Council of Governments, 2000 Regional Housing Allocation Plan, adopted May 17, 2001, Website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/RHAP_00.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2007 Kern Council of Governments, 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan, adopted June 21, 2007, Website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/RHNA.pdf. Accessed: July 9, 2007 Kern Council of Governments, Data Summaries: 2000-2050 Population Projections By Race/Ethnicity, Gender And Age Report 03 P-3 (data provided by Department of Finance Demographics Research Unit, May 2004). Website: http://www.kerncog.org/pdf/Estimates/race_gen_proj_ New.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2007 Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan Kern County Interactive GIS map. Available: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning. Kern County Library Annual Report 2005/2006. Website: http://www.kerncountylibrary.org/HTML/about/annual.html. Accessed April 16, 2007 Kern County Library Facilities Master Plan to the Year 2020, County Administrative Office and Kern County Library, February 12, 2002. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Kern County Library Southwest Branch. Website: http://www.kerncountylibrary.org/HTML/about/branch/sw.html. Accessed April 16, 2007. Kern County Planning Department, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2005121041), Conditional Use Permit No. 3, Map 102-3, Zone Variance No. 3, Map 102-3, February 16, 2007. Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Calculation of Student Generation Rates SB-50, July 1, 2006 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Bikeway Master Plan (included in the Circulation Element of the MBGP), adopted August, 2002. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, adopted December 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, Safety Element, Kern County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, adopted March 13, 2007. Website: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/mbgptoc.pdf. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, approved August 1994. Murie, O. J., A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Peterson Field Guides, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York, 1974. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971. National Historic Preservation Act, 1996. 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60. Office of Noise Control, California Department of Public Health Regional Transportation Plan, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf, California Native Plant Society, A Manual of California Vegetation, 1995. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. State Housing Element Law State Occupational Safety and Health Act State of California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age for California and its Counties 2000-2050, May 2004. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/Projections/P3/P3. asp. Accessed: May 30, 2007. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2006, with 2000 Benchmark. Website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E5/E5-06/E-5text2.asp. Accessed April 10, 2007 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. US Code of federal regulations Title 42 section 7412. USDA, Hydric Soils of the U.S., California portion, 1995. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project IX. References Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IX-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 V. GENERAL IMPACT CATEGORIES A. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(b) states: “Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reason why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.” Based on the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts. Provided below is a listing of those impacts. Significant impacts attributable to the Project are identified separately from those impacts for which the Project contributes to a significant cumulative impact. Transportation/Traffic Project and Cumulative Intersection Impacts Project impacts at all intersections have been mitigated to below the significance criteria adopted by the City of Bakersfield. However, as discussed in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, as requested by the City the proposed Project was also analyzed using a second impact criterion that this Draft EIR refers to as the City's Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria. Furthermore, and also at the City’s request, an additional analysis of intersections along Rosedale Highway was conducted using an alternative analysis methodology that provide signal greentime priority to east-west traffic along the Rosedale corridor – the Green-Time Priority Analysis. As set forth under the Green-Time Priority Analysis conducted under the City of Bakersfield’s adopted significance criteria and the Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria, with the exception of two intersections during afternoon peak hours, the proposed Project would not have have a significant impact at any of the studied intersections. Significant and unavoidable impacts at the following two intersections would remain even after Project development Phase I (Year 2015) & II (Year 2035) mitigation measures are in place: • Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway • Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway Furthermore, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Because City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project Phase. Project and Cumulative Street Segment Impacts Using the City of Bakersfield’s criteria for significant impacts on street segments, the Project’s traffic would result in significant and unavoidable impacts according to the three phases of the Project development. Phase I (Year 2015) In opening year conditions no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate street segment impacts; therefore, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following four analyzed street segments: • Street Segment #30, Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road • Street Segment #47, Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue • Street Segment #61, Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway • Street Segment #65, California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, they would exceed the City’s design standards. The widening of Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (Street Segment #30) would require the removal of a number of businesses lining the highway. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue along the impacted segments would require the removal of many multi-story office and residential buildings that line the two street segments (i.e., Street Segments #47 and #65) and would eliminate landscaping along the sidewalks. Widening of Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment #61) would require the replacement or widening of a bridge over a canal as well as the removal of several retail buildings on the west side of Coffee Road. However, the impacts to Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue (Street Segment #47) and on California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway (Street Segment Segment #65) are considered temporary in nature. These locations would not be impacted upon completion of the Westside Parkway. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phase I & II (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following two analyzed street segments: • Street Segment #14, Coffee Road north of Hageman Road • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, they would exceed the City’s design standards. The widening of Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) is infeasible due to the number of private residences along the east side of the street and utility towers lining the west side of the street immediately beyond the gutter. The widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the area would be significant to residents. As such, no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the impacts at these two locations (i.e., Street Segments #14 and #77), which would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria. Phase I, II & III (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II & III), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following analyzed street segments: • Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue While mitigation measures were identified in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR, they would exceed the City’s design standards. The widening of Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue (Street Segment #77) would require that all of the landscaping and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the west side of the street as well as the planted median be removed. In this purely residential area, such a change to the character of the street would be significant to residents. Further, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road (Street Segment #44), cannot be mitigated even by exceeding the City’s standard design using the reduced capacity for added lanes specified by the City; however, if the additional lane were assigned the full capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day per lane, no significant impact would remain under the City’s impact criteria. As such, no feasible improvement could be identified to fully mitigate this impact at this City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 location (i.e. Street Segment #77), which would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria. Air Quality Project Odor Impacts Due to the proximity of the proposed residential uses at the Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), the residential uses would likely be exposed to odors generated daily at the refinery. As discussed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, due to past odor complaints documented by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District at this refinery, a significant impact associated with objectionable odors would occur at the proposed on-site residential uses. There are currently no feasible mitigation measures available that can be implemented by the proposed Project to eliminate or reduce these odors. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. However, it is important to note that since the area’s prevailing winds originate from the northwest and the Project Site is located to the west of the Big West refinery, it is unlikely that the Project’s residential uses would experience odor impacts attributable to Big West’s emissions. Noise Project Operational Impacts Significant roadway noise impacts during Phase II and III operations along two roadway segments (Brimhall Road, east of Calloway Drive; and Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road). Cumulative Operational Impacts Significant cumulative noise impacts at one roadway segment (i.e., Coffee Road, north of Brimhall Road) during Phase I, II and III operations. B. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed action could be growth inducing. This includes ways in which the project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced or fostered in several general ways listed as follows: • Direct growth associated with the project. • Creation of demand not satisfied within the project. • Creation of surplus infrastructure capacity not utilized by a project. • Creation of capacity by an agency not required by a project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 A project could also foster growth by removing obstacles to population growth. A type of project that is often cited as an example of one that is growth inducing is the expansion of a major wastewater treatment plant that would allow more development in a service area. In addition, some projects may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Each of the four general categories of potential growth inducing impacts is evaluated relative to the proposed Project under separate subheadings below. Direct Growth Associated with the Project The Project’s proposed land uses, related facilities, and the respective populations that directly utilize them represent an increment of direct on-site growth. Such growth would add 425 dwelling units, 1,400,000 square feet of retail, and 600,000 square feet of office space on the Project site. This increment of direct growth has been the subject of each of the analyses of Project impacts upon the various environmental categories presented in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. The potential impacts of Project implementation would include effects on, or from, land use; traffic; aesthetics (visual character, light and glare, and urban decay); geology; hydrology and water quality; hazards and hazardous materials; mineral resources; biological resources; cultural resources; air quality; noise; population and housing; public services; and utilities. Per City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) growth forecasts, the proposed Project’s residential and employment generating uses are each within their respective growth forecasts. In addition, adopted zoning and General Plan designations provide for a larger overall increment of growth on the Project site than would the proposed Project, though the ratios of employment and residential land uses are different. This means that the increment of direct growth attributable to the proposed Project was anticipated by regional growth forecasts and local land use plans, and would be expected to occur whether or not the proposed Project is implemented. Therefore, the direct growth attributable to this Project could not be classified as induced growth beyond expected levels on the subject property or in the region. Creation of Demand Not Satisfied Within the Project The proposed Project’s resident and employee populations may produce a demand for goods, services or facilities not directly provided or satisfied by the Project, which could indirectly induce growth necessary to accommodate this demand off-site. Proposed on-site uses would be occupied daily and/or utilized by some 1,284 residents and 5,169 net new employees. Collectively, these populations would be expected to generate demand for publicly provided services, including police and fire protection, and library, school, school, and recreation facilities. The expansion of public services would be commensurate with demand, and the proposed Project provides the fiscal means for the respective agencies (City of Bakersfield, Fruitvale School District, and the Kern High School District) to address these issues. Therefore, the Project’s demand for publicly provided services should not be growth-inducing. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Proposed Project populations also generate new demand for secondary services such as regional or specialty retail, restaurant or food delivery, and recreation and entertainment, as well as services and suppliers to support on-site commercial uses. The Project with a total of 2.0 million square feet of commercial/office uses and 425 residential units has expressly been designed to meet the existing off-site demand for such uses, while also satisfying on-site demand. As such, the Project for the most part is not creating any new demand. In addition, parts of the on-site resident and employee populations should be expected to seek employment and housing, respectively, in communities surrounding the Project site and at greater distance, just as existing off-site residents and employees should be expected to seek employment or housing within the Project. As previously noted, the Project’s predicted resident and employment populations are within City and County forecasts, and, therefore, are not expected to be directly growthinducing. The Project is an in-fill development within an existing urban fabric, and further, has been designed to provide an internally mixed-use community. As a result, substantial amounts of unanticipated off-site regional growth would not be required to absorb an unbalanced fraction of unsatisfied Project demand for employment or housing. Infrastructure improvements necessary to meet Project demands for water supply and distribution, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and energy supply and distribution are addressed separately below. Wastewater Treatment Construction has commenced to expand Treatment Plant No. 3 to double its current capacity. While the City’s decision to expand capacity to accommodate managed future growth may be growth-inducing, proposed Project use of that future capacity would not induce additional growth. Water Distribution Implementation of the proposed Project would create additional maximum daily demand for approximately 2.2 acre feet of water. On-site improvements to the existing water distribution system would be constructed to serve the proposed development and would be sized according to projected demands, including maximum day demands. Off-site improvements to water system facilities are being completed by the Kern County Water Agency and the City of Bakersfield to provide adequate potable water for existing and planned area residents and businesses, including the proposed Project. Development of the proposed Project would not exceed water distribution infrastructure capacity. Proposed Project infrastructure improvements are required to meet Project flow and distribution needs. Therefore, these improvements are not considered growth-inducing. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Solid Waste Management Implementation of the proposed Project would generate approximately 50 tons per day of solid waste. This solid waste generation would constitute less than one percent of the available capacity of the Bena landfill. Given that there is considerable projected landfill capacity and there is no need for additional disposal capacity, the proposed Project would not result in a growth inducing impact to the Bena landfill. Energy Supply and Distribution The proposed Project proposes no facilities on-site or off-site to directly generate or co-generate energy. It would instead be reliant on conventional electric power and natural gas for most of its energy requirements, in addition to passive design techniques. Improvements to the existing electric and natural gas distribution systems would be required to create adequate distribution capacity capacity to serve the proposed Project. Such improvements would be sized to serve the demands of the proposed Project and/or to provide improved service to existing users without inducing additional growth. Demand for natural gas from proposed Project-related construction and operation would not require expansion or additional supply facilities, beyond distribution infrastructure. This demand would not induce growth that has not been accounted for in regional projections. The increase in electricity demand resulting from proposed Project uses would not require expansion of supply facilities. Electricity distribution infrastructure would be upgraded to meet Project demands, though these improvements would only serve the proposed Project uses and would, therefore, not induce growth off-site. Creation of Surplus Infrastructure Capacity Not Utilized by the Project Should the Project create more infrastructure capacity than is needed to serve the Project, then the unused increment might be available to accommodate growth off-site. Such infrastructure capacity, beyond that discussed in the previous section, would be provided in the form of transportation facilities. In order to accommodate Project-generated traffic on the local street system, a substantial program of transportation system improvements would be necessary to increase capacity at various locations. In addition, the Project proposes a network of on-site roadways, providing access to and through the Project site. The Project’s mitigation measures have been designed to mitigate Project impacts to a level beyond that required to meet the needs of the Project’s additional traffic, thus enhancing traffic capacity at some locations. However, the increased capacity is not likely to result in notable, substantial reductions in traffic flows to a level that would induce new growth into the area. The Project’s transportation improvements are also part of planned improvements to the regional road network required to meet the needs of existing, and otherwise anticipated new population. The transportation system improvements would be implemented to ensure that the improvements are implemented commensurate with anticipated development to the extent feasible. There could be situations where anticipated impacts do not occur during the short-term, and unanticipated impacts do occur, prior to the implementation of a specific transportation system improvement. Therefore, there City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 remains a potential for short-term excess capacity in advance of the planned development that would be resolved at later stages of Project implementation. Creation of Capacity by an Agency Not Required by the Project In considering the infrastructure needs of the Project, public agencies could increase infrastructure capacity under their jurisdictions beyond that required by the Project for other purposes in order to achieve economies of scale. The only activity in the area that may meet this criterion is the expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3 to double its current capacity. The City’s decision to expand capacity to accommodate managed future growth may be growth-inducing in the long-term; however, the Project itself is not creating new infrastructure or causing the expansion of Treatment Plant No. 3. C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in a project should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c)). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) indicates that “[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with a project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The following discussion provides a brief summary of the impacts associated with the various environmental topics discussed in the previous sections of this EIR; and where significant impacts would occur, indicates whether such impacts are reversible or irreversible. Land Use The proposed Project, except for the need to change the Project site’s General Plan and zoning designations, is compatible with existing plans. Further, the Project would not alter the character of surrounding uses nor divide an existing community. Additionally, the Project would not result in any adverse impacts with regard to urban decay. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on land use. As land use impacts are not significant, a long-term irreversible significant impact on land use would not occur. Transportation and Circulation The urban uses to be introduced to the area would establish a long-term demand on the existing transportation system, irreversibly altering the operations of the system. However, improvements to the street system with respect to intersections, together with mitigation measures, would reduce the Project’s City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 impact to a less than significant level with the exception of two intersections when analyzed under the City’s adopted significance criteria and the Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria and applying the City-requested Green-Time Priority Analysis even after Project development Phase I (Year 2015) & II (Year 2035) mitigation measures are in place: 1) #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway; and 2) #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway, where no feasible mitigation is available to reduce these impacts. Improvements to the street system with respect to street segments, together with mitigation measures, would reduce the Project’s impact to a less than significant level with the exception of the following street segments according to Project phase development: Phase I (Year 2015) • Street Segment #30, Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road • Street Segment #47, 47, Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue • Street Segment #61, Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway • Street Segment #65, California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway Phase I & II (Year 2035) • Street Segment #14, Coffee Road north of Hageman Road • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue Phase I, II & III (Year 2035) • Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road • Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue Aesthetics Irreversible changes to the existing aesthetic character of the proposed Project site would occur due to the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. However, the Project would provide a cohesive visual element that is consistent with surrounding land uses, while also implementing important City policy goals and objectives promoting urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. Because of project design features which reduce light and glare, there would be no significant impacts associated with proposed artificial light sources. In addition, there are no potentially adverse impacts which would create blight associated with urban decay as the result of business closures. Therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Geology and Soils After mitigation, there would be no significant impacts associated with geology and soils; therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. Hydrology and Water Quality After mitigation, there would be no significant impacts associated with hydrology or water quality. Therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. Hazards and Hazardous Materials After mitigation, there would be no significant Project impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no significant irreversible impacts attributable to the Project would occur. Cumulative impacts associated with proximity to the Big West Refinery would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, significant cumulative irreversible impacts would occur. Mineral Resources After mitigation, there would be no significant impacts associated with mineral resources; therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. Biological Resources After mitigation, there would be no significant impacts associated with biological resources; therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. Cultural Resources Implementation of the Project could result in potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on paleontological or archaeological resources associated with excavation, placement of fill and structures or from unauthorized collecting from disturbed rock units and spoils piles. Notwithstanding, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to an acceptable level such that significant impacts would not occur. Therefore, no significant irreversible impact would occur. The Proposed Project would have no affects on historic resources and, therefore, no significant irreversible effects would occur. Air Quality The urban uses to be introduced to the area would not generate a significant impact to Air Quality; however, due to the proximity of the proposed residential uses at the Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), the residential uses would likely be exposed to odors generated daily at the refinery. As a result, air quality impacts to future residents associated with odor would be City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 significant and unavoidable. Therefore, significant irreversible impacts would occur. However, this conclusion is based on a strict interpretation of the District’s significance threshold with regard to odors. When considering this conclusion it is important to note that the prevailing winds in the Project area are from the northwest and the Big West refinery is located east of the Project site, thereby placing the Project site upwind of the Big West refinery. As such, the potential for the significant odor impact described above to actually occur is limited. As a result, the conclusion of a significant odor impact represents a very conservative conclusion that is anticipated to substantially overstate the actual impact that is anticipated to occur. Noise The urban uses to be introduced to the area would establish an essentially permanent increase in the ambient noise environment. Impacts associated with Project construction and roadway noise levels during the operations of Phases II and III would be significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, significant irreversible impacts would occur. Population, Housing, and Employment Project implementation would result in the establishment of a local population on the Project site. Other urban uses providing on-site employment opportunities would also be introduced, irreversibly committing a large portion of the site to urban uses including urban parks. These impacts are not significant, and therefore are not irreversibly significant. The Project’s beneficial impact on jobs/housing balance would be of long-term service to the regional distribution of housing and employment uses. Public Services The new resident and worker population would increase the demand for school, police, fire, library, and public recreation services. The increased demand on such services would be essentially irreversible. However, the anticipated new tax revenues to be produced by the proposed Project could be used for providing services, at the discretion of the decision makers. After mitigation, there would be no significant impacts associated with public services; therefore, no significant irreversible impacts would occur. Utilities An essentially permanent, irreversible demand on utilities would be created on the site, although reduced by current conservation statutes, project design features, and mitigation measures. This impact, however, would not be significant, given that Project-related utility use has been accounted for in regional projections. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project V. General Impact Categories Draft Environmental Impact Report Page V-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT INTRODUCTION The State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs include the identification and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project while still meeting the general Project objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines also set forth the intent and extent of the alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR. Those considerations are discussed below. Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” Purpose Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly.” Potentially Significant Project Impacts The alternatives analysis includes a comparison of the impacts that would be significant and unavoidable or less than significant with mitigation as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. Project impacts that would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation include the following: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Transportation/Traffic Impacts • Project and Cumulative Intersection Impacts As set forth under the Green-Time Priority Analysis conducted under the City of Bakersfield’s adopted significance criteria and the Five-Second Delay Traffic Impact Criteria, with the exception of two intersections during afternoon peak hours, the proposed Project would not have a significant impact at any of the studied intersections. Significant and unavoidable impacts at the following two intersections would remain even after Project development Phase I (Year 2015) & II (Year 2035) mitigation measures are in place: o Intersection #30, Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway o Intersection #56, Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway Furthermore, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Similarly, if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Because significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, the project Applicant will complete a traffic confirmation analysis between each Project phase. • Project and Cumulative Street Segment Impacts Using the City of Bakersfield’s criteria for significant impacts on street segments, the Project’s traffic would result in significant and unavoidable impacts according to the three phases of the Project development. Phase I (Year 2015) In opening year conditions no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate street segment impacts; therefore, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following four analyzed street segments: o Street Segment #30, Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road o Street Segment #47, Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue o Street Segment #61, Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway o Street Segment #65, California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phase I & II (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I & II), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following two analyzed street segments: o Street Segment #14, Coffee Road north of Hageman Road o Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue Phase I, II & III (Year 2035) Under Future with Project conditions in 2035 (Phases I, II & III), no feasible improvements could be identified to fully mitigate the street segment impacts; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable according to the City’s criteria at the following analyzed street segments: o Street Segment #44, Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road o Street Segment #77, Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue Air Quality Impacts • Project Odor Due to the proximity of the proposed residential uses at the Project site to the Big West refinery (i.e., approximately 0.8 mile away), the residential uses would likely be exposed to odors generated daily at the refinery. Noise Impacts • Project Operational & Cumulative Impacts Off-site sensitive receptors would be subject to audible intermittent noise levels during construction of the proposed Project. Off-site sensitive receptors would also be subject to increases in ambient noise levels as a result of increases in traffic associated with the proposed Project as well as the related projects. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project Objectives As stated above, the range of potential alternatives to the proposed Project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project. The basic objectives of the proposed Project are as follows: • Create a flexible, market-driven development that may respond to existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; • Create a "high-quality" development that complements existing development trends in the area; • Locate commercial development in proximity to existing and/or planned [northwest Bakersfield] residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; • Locate commercial uses along transportation corridors; • Develop Develop commercial centers with a diverse range of commercial uses to serve various users (e.g., residents, workers, tourists, visitors); • Create a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment; • Provide a sustainable, infill development by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; • Develop a mix of commercial and residential uses to improve jobs-housing balance; • Locate residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes; • Transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities; • Establish a community with mixed uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; • Promote an environmentally sensitive balance of uses; • Create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; • Develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing parks and trails and accommodate the recreational needs of residents; and • Provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” Alternatives Rejected as Being Infeasible As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following offsite alternatives, that would involve development of the Project as proposed, but on a site other than the proposed Project site within the City of Bakersfield, were considered: • Rosedale Ranch: This alternative site is located south of 7th Standard and west of Allen Road in Northwest Bakersfield. This site is zoned for a master planned community, including 200 acres of industrial zoning, not yet under construction. • McAllister Ranch: This alternative site is located west of Allen Road and north of Panama Lane in Southwest Bakersfield. This site is zoned for a master planned community and a golf course currently under construction. • Old River Ranch: This alternative site is located west of Old River Road and south of Panama Lane in Southwest Bakersfield. This site is zoned for a master planned community, not yet under construction. • City Farm: An alternative site located east of Mt. Vernon Avenue and south of SR58 in Southeast Bakersfield. This site is currently used for agricultural purposes using City treated wastewater with private development plans pending. The four alternative sites listed above were all rejected from further study as they fail to meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project, specifically they are not infill development sites within an existing developed portion of the City, and thus cannot take advantage of serving existing communities in close proximity nor take advantage of existing infrastructure and public service systems. Additionally, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 neither the Applicant for the proposed Project nor the City of Bakersfield have ownership control of the four sites considered. Overview of Selected Alternatives The alternatives selected for analysis in comparison to the proposed Project include: Alternative A: No Project; Alternative B: Reduced Intensity; Alternative C: Existing General Plan/Zoning; Alternative D: Residential; Alternative E: Industrial; Alternative F: Alternative Site – West Ming; and Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment. Table VI-1 provides a comparison of the land uses associated with the proposed Project and each of the Project alternatives. Table VI-2 at the end of this section provides a summary of the comparison of impacts associated with the proposed Project and each of the Project alternatives. Assumptions and Methodology The following alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed Project and assumes that mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project would apply to each alternative as applicable. The following alternatives analysis compares the potential significant environmental impacts of the seven alternatives with those of the proposed Project for each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-1 Comparison of Alternatives Land Use Proposed Project a Alternative A: No Project Alternative B: Reduced Intensity a Alternative C: Existing GP/Zoning b Alternative D: Residential b Alternative E: Industrial b Alternative F: Alternative Site Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment Commercial 2,000,000 sf 7,600 sf 1,500,000 sf 525,000 sf 2,650,000 sf 2,000,000 sf Industrial -105 ac 1,267,596 sf 3,070,980 sf --Residential 425 du 113 ac 319 du 687 du 1,429 du 425 du 425 du Public/Private Schools ---175,000 sf --Development Subtotal 2,000,000 sf 425 du 7,600 sf -1,500,000 sf 319 du 1,967,596 sf 687 du -1,429 du 3,070,980 sf -2,650,000 425 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Includes 70,000 square feet of multiplex cinema for the Project and 52,500 square feet of multiplex cinema for Alternative B. b b Calculated based on maximum allowable development per net acreage (80 percent of gross acreage). A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Description As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative (Alternative A). Alternative A assumes that no Project is approved, no additional development occurs within the proposed Project site, existing land uses within the proposed Project site would remain unchanged, and no General Plan amendments or zone changes would occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the proposed Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, a former refinery, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. As such, the existing buildings, totaling approximately 7,600 square feet, would continue to function as they currently do. Internal circulation and parking would also remain unchanged. Accordingly, this Alternative would be equivalent to the conditions on the Project site discussed under existing conditions for each category analyzed in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative A below. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative A, there would be no amendment to the General Plan or zone changes required as no new additional development would occur. The site would remain designated with 36 acres of HI (Heavy Industrial), 69 acres LI (Light Industrial), 12 acres GC (General Commercial), 113 acres LR (Low City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Density Residential), 21 acres OS-P (Parks and Recreational Facilities), and 4 acres PS (Public and Private School). As discussed above, the existing office and commercial uses would continue to operate on-site as they do today. The existing uses would remain consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations. As such, no discretionary actions are needed to continue the existing uses, and no impact to land use and planning would result. Thus, land use and planning impacts associated with the proposed Project, although less than significant, would not occur under Alternative A and the impacts of Alternative A would be less when compared to the proposed Project. Urban Decay Alternative A would not introduce any new retail space to the Project site. Analyses prepared in support of the Project indicate that Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, which in turn could cause existing retail space to become vacant, with subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers resulting in urban decay and visual blight. Although urban decay and visual blight impacts would be less than significant under both Alternative A and the proposed Project, Alternative A would have less impact than the proposed Project, as no retail uses are developed under this Alternative. Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative A, no additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways. As this Alternative would result in no additional traffic, no transportation or traffic impacts would occur. This Alternative would not provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities nor would bus service to the site be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, impacts to alternative transportation facilities under Alternative A would be less than significant, which is the case with the proposed Project, but impacts would be greater under Alternative A than the proposed Project as the beneficial effects identified above would not occur. Under this Alternative, no construction would occur, therefore, impacts associated with construction traffic of the proposed Project, although less than significant, would not occur under Alternative A and the impacts of Alternative A would be less when compared to the proposed Project. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the Project’s traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-ofway to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that at some Project intersections significant impacts would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, Alternative A would reduce the significant and unavoidable Project impacts and impacts would be less under Alternative A than the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Aesthetics Under Alternative A, no additional development of the site would occur, and the existing conditions of the proposed Project site would remain the same. As such, existing visual characteristics, including views from surrounding properties, would remain unchanged. Alternative A would thus not provide the beneficial aesthetic features associated with the proposed Project (e.g., the proposed Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site and serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan). As no changes would occur at the Project site under this Alternative, impacts would be less than significant, as is the case with the proposed Project. Furthermore, the Project’s beneficial impacts related to aesthetics would not occur and, thus, visual impacts would be greater under Alternative A in comparison to the proposed Project. Alternative A would not introduce new lighting or reflective surfaces to the Project site. Lighting and reflective surfaces would remain at existing levels. Thus, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed Project, although less than significant, would not occur under Alternative A. Lighting impacts would be less under Alternative A when compared to the proposed Project as no new light sources would be added to the area. Geology & Soils Under Alternative A, no development would occur within the Project site and the proposed Project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts on geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil, would not occur. Therefore, while impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, Alternative A would have less impact with respect to geologic and seismic hazards than the proposed Project. Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative A would not result in any construction or operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Furthermore, this Alternative would not introduce additional sources of pollutants, such as trash and debris, or other pollutants from Project construction or the addition of impervious surfaces. Therefore, while impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less under Alternative A as compared to the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative A would not result in construction or demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), existing on-site petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the Project site, or the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, or lead-based paint. Under Alternative A, the proposed Project’s potentially significant, but mitigable impacts related to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells would not occur. While impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, impacts under Alternative A would be greater when compared to the proposed Project as the removal of these materials from the Project site that would occur under the Project would not occur under Alternative A. While the Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West Refinery, which is located east of the proposed Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. As Alternative A would not introduce additional persons to the proposed Project site, fewer persons would have the potential to be exposed to the potential hazards associated with the Big West facility. Therefore, impacts would be less under Alternative A when compared to the proposed Project, and would be considered less than significant. Mineral Resources Under Alternative A, no development would occur within the proposed Project site and no potential to disrupt the extraction of mineral resources would occur. Under Alternative A, the proposed Project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource would not occur. While impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, Alternative A would have less impact on oil and mineral resources than the proposed Project. Biological Resources Under Alternative A, no development would occur within the proposed Project site and therefore, there would be no potential for disruption of existing wildlife activity or vegetation (i.e., site features and habitats would remain the same). Under Alternative A, the proposed Project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances would not occur. While impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, Alternative A would have less impact on biological resources than the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Cultural Resources Under Alternative A, no development would occur within the proposed Project site and no potential for disruption would occur. Under Alternative A, the proposed Project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to human remains would not occur. While impacts under Alternative A and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, Alternative A would have less impact on cultural resources than the proposed Project. Air Quality Alternative A would not result in any construction activities, and no change in the existing operations or emissions that presently occur on the proposed Project site would occur. Therefore, Alternative A would not violate any air quality standards, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality impacts under this Alternative would not occur and, thus, would be less than the proposed Project’s impacts, which would be significant for the exposure of future on-site residents to potential odors attributable to Big West refinery operations and less than significant with regard to all other construction and operational impacts as well as the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable air quality plans and policies. Thus, Alternative A would eliminate a significant impact that occurs under the proposed Project. However, Alternative A would have less beneficial impacts than the proposed Project with regard to air quality policies as Alternative A would not advance key air pollution reduction policies realized under the proposed Project, including, but not limited to, proposing a mixed-use project, providing retail opportunities in proximity to residential uses, promoting orderly growth patterns (i.e., infill of vacant parcels), promoting alternative transportation modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, transit, etc.), and no new jobs in proximity to existing residential development, Noise Alternative A would not require any construction on the proposed Project site, so there would be no increase in noise levels associated with construction activities. In addition, no changes to the existing internal circulation system or on-site parking configuration would occur. No additional noise sources would be created under this Alternative, and there would be no changes to the overall layout of the site. As such, no noise impacts would occur under this Alternative, and, thus, would be less and avoid the proposed Project’s potentially significant impacts attributable to the increases in roadway noise levels generated by the proposed Project as well as less with regard to the less than significant noise impacts associated with the proposed Project’s construction and operations. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Population and Housing Under Alternative A, no housing would be developed. Alternative A would also not provide beneficial jobs or housing nor would it result in an improved jobs-housing balance that would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. As no new development would occur, Alternative A would not induce, directly or indirectly, substantial population growth. Thus, population and housing impacts under Alternative A would be less than significant, which is the case with the proposed Project, but impacts would be greater than the proposed Project’s impacts as the Project’s beneficial effects resulting from the provision of needed jobs and housing would not occur under Alternative A. Public Services Under Alternative A, no housing would be developed and no increased demands on existing public services would occur. Although this is the case, Alternative A would not provide beneficial open space and park facilities proposed as part of the Project. Although the proposed Project provides a beneficial impact through the provision of open space and park facilities, the proposed Project’s less than significant impacts on public services would be greater under the proposed Project as compared to Alternative A. Utilities & Service Systems Alternative A would not result in the upgrading of any on-site utility or service facilities as on-site water and sewer demands would not increase under Alternative A and no additional water supplies or fire flows would be required. Furthermore, the amount of wastewater treated at the City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3 would not increase above existing levels under Alternative A, nor would there be any increases in electricity and natural gas usage nor solid waste generation. Thus, the less than significant impacts of both the proposed Project and Alternative A would be less under Alternative A as compared to the proposed Project. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative A would not meet any of the basic objectives of the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 B. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative B) assumes a 25 percent reduction of all proposed Project land uses. As shown in Table VI-2, under this Alternative, the total commercial square footage would be reduced from 2,000,000 square feet to 1,500,000 square feet and the total number of dwelling units would be reduced from the 425 units to 319 units. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative B and the proposed Project is provided in Table VI-2. Table VI-2 Comparison of Alternative B: Reduced Intensity and the Proposed Project Alternative B: Reduced Intensity Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 1,050,000 sf a 1,400,000 sf a -350,000 sf -25% Office 450,000 sf 600,000 sf -150,000 sf -25% Commercial Subtotal 1,500,000 sf 2,000,000 sf -500,000 sf -25% Residential 319 du 425 du -106 du -25% Development Subtotal 1,500,000 sf 319 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du -500,000 sf -106 du -25% -25% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project includes a 70,000 square-foot cinema, whereas Alternative B includes a 52,500 square-foot cinema. The massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as all roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would be similar to the proposed Project under this Alternative. Other development characteristics (e.g. lighting, landscaping, and utility connections) are also assumed to be generally similar to those of the proposed Project, for the purpose of analyzing this Alternative. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative B. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are also incorporated into the analysis of Alternative B as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative B below. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative B, a General Plan amendment and zone changes would be required to reclassify approximately 71 acres of the site to GC (General Commercial) land uses with C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) zoning, 141 acres to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) land uses with C-C/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development) zoning, and 24 acres to HMR (High-Medium Density Residential) land uses with R-3/PUD (Multiple-Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zoning, similar to the proposed Project. Alternative B would require similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 discretionary actions and be developed in a similar configuration with similar development standards as the proposed Project; e.g., locating residential uses in the southwest corner of the site, retail uses at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, and office uses east of Coffee Road. This arrangement of on-site land uses would create an appropriate interface between Alternative B land uses and existing residential uses as well as existing and planned commercial uses, along Brimhall Road. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would be consistent with the goals and polices of all applicable land use plans. Thus, the less than significant land use and planning impacts of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Urban Decay Alternative B would introduce approximately 1.0 million square feet of retail uses to the proposed Project site. Economic impact analyses prepared in support of the proposed Project indicate that proposed Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City and would not cause existing retail space to become vacant, which could bring subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers resulting in urban decay and visual blight. As Alternative B proposes 25 percent less retail square footage than the proposed Project, urban decay and visual blight impacts under Alternative B and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, although Alternative B would have less of an impact than the proposed Project due to the reduction in on-site retail square footage. Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative B, additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways, but less traffic would be generated in comparison to the proposed Project and some mitigation measures required for the Project would not be required for Alternative B. This Alternative would provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities and bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Under this Alternative, there would be less development and fewer buildings would be constructed resulting in a decrease in associated construction traffic. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the proposed Project’s traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-ofway to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that significant impacts at some Project intersections would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the significant unavoidable impacts of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar but would be less under Alternative B than the proposed Project as fewer trips would be generated at the Project site. Aesthetics Alternative B would contain similar types of land uses, building setbacks, building heights, signage, lighting, and landscaping as the proposed Project, although the lesser amount of development under Alternative B could occur in the form of smaller builders and/or fewer buildings. While there would be less development under Alternative B, the site’s overall visual characteristics, including views from surrounding properties, would be similar as the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would upgrade the existing visual character of the site and serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area. Therefore, the less than significant impacts to visual resources of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. As with the proposed Project, Alternative B would implement a lighting plan that would reduce potential light and glare impacts such that less than significant impacts would occur for all off-site uses. Thus, the less than significant light and glare impacts of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Geology & Soils Alternative B would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the proposed Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would require implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B and the proposed Project would both potentially be significant, but would be mitigable to a less than significant level and Alternative B would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative B would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Alternative B would increase impervious surfaces on-site and provide for storm water basins and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 opportunities similar to the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would require implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts to groundwater quality associated with infiltration of surface water, proper abandonment of wells, unauthorized well access, and conveyance of contaminants between aquifers. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to hydrology and water quality of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative B would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), existing on-site petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the proposed Project site, and the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, or lead-based paint. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would require implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells. Thus, these potentially significant but mitigable impacts would be similar under Alternative B as compared to the proposed Project. While the proposed Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the proposed Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West Refinery, which is located east of the proposed Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. As Alternative B would introduce additional but fewer persons to the site than the proposed Project, fewer persons would have the potential to be exposed to the potential hazards associated with the Big West facility than with the Project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less under Alternative B when compared to the proposed Project, but would still be considered less than significant. Mineral Resources Under Alternative B, development would occur within the proposed Project site that could potentially disrupt the extraction of mineral resources. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would require implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigatable mitigable impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Biological Resources Alternative B would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. The approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices would be removed. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would require implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative B would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B would implement Mitigations Measure J-1 and J-2 to further reduce the less than significant impacts associated with archaeological resources and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable impacts to cultural resources of Alternative B and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative B would include development with associated grading and construction activities similar to the proposed Project. While there would be less development and fewer buildings could be constructed under this Alternative, the entire site would be graded in a similar fashion to the proposed Project. Thus, this Alternative would generate similar amounts of fugitive dust, but other pollutant emissions during construction would be reduced, when compared to the proposed Project. Assuming the reduction in development that occurs under Alternative B is spread evenly across the Project’s development phases, it is likely that NOx emissions in 2011 would be sufficiently reduced so as to result in a less than significant impact (i.e., emissions would be less than 10 tons per year). Similarly, the Project’s NOx impacts in 2011 are less than significant, although the Project’s NOx emissions in 2011 are anticipated to be greater than those occurring under Alternative B. Localized construction and odor impacts during construction would be similar or less than those of the proposed Project as peak construction activity levels may be the same even though less development would be constructed. Thus, Alternative B would have air quality impacts that are less and less than significant compared to the proposed Project’s less than significant construction impacts. Under Alternative B, less square footage and fewer units would be developed on-site; therefore fewer new traffic trips and stationary source emissions would be generated. While emissions under Alternative B would be less than those of the proposed Project before mitigation, implementation of the recommended City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 mitigation measures would reduce regional emissions to less than significant levels, so the comparative impacts relative to regional operational emissions of ROG and NOx in 2015 and 2035 would be the same, although emissions of CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, would be less under Alternative B. The proposed Project’s less than significant impact with regard to hazardous air pollutants would be reduced under Alternative B as fewer truck deliveries would occur during operations. Alternative B would also be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, as would be the case with the proposed Project, although Alternative B would implement certain policies to a lesser extent than what occurs under the proposed Project due to the reduction in development. Potential impacts associated with the exposure of future on-site residents to potential odors attributable to Big West refinery operations under Alternative B and the proposed Project would both be significant. However, as Alternative B would include fewer residents, the potential impact would be less when compared to the proposed Project. While Alternative B’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions also would be reduced compared to the proposed Project, both the proposed Project and Alternative B would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions pursuant to the provisions of AB 32 and would successfully implement the recommendations set forth in the 2006 CAT Report. In summary, while the emissions of the pollutants that are critical to the Bakersfield area would be reduced to less than significant levels under both Alternative B and the proposed Project, regional emissions would generally be less under Alternative B, which is also the case for local emissions, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Even so, both the proposed Project and Alternative B would be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although Alternative B would implement certain policies to a lesser extent due to the reduction in development. Furthermore, the significant odor impact to on-site residents from Big West operations would also occur under the proposed Project and Alternative B, although fewer on-site residents would be exposed to this impact under Alternative B. Noise Alternative B would require grading and construction activities at the site, which could result in noise level increases similar to the proposed Project if the development under this Alternative in proximity to the off-site noise sensitive receptors is of similar size and use as the proposed Project, otherwise, construction noise levels would be less under this Alternative. This Alternative would also add additional traffic to the surrounding roadways, but less traffic would be generated than in comparison to the proposed Project. While the reductions in traffic would reduce the proposed Project’s significant impacts, the reductions in noise levels would not be sufficient enough to eliminate this impact. As such, roadway noise impacts under Alternative B, as is the case with the proposed Project, would be significant. Furthermore, while potential noise impacts associated with on-site operations would be reduced under this Alternative, as is the case with the proposed Project, these potential impacts would be less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Population and Housing Under Alternative B, on-site population would increase to approximately 4,841 persons (including 964 permanent residents within 319 dwelling units and 3,877 net employees). It is conservatively assumed that all 319 dwelling units would be occupied at the single-family rate of 3.02 persons per dwelling unit. While this population and housing growth is 25 percent less than the proposed Project, Alternative B would be consistent with all applicable growth forecasts, would serve to maintain the area’s jobs-housing balance and would be generally consistent with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. Notwithstanding, Alternative B would not provide as many beneficial jobs or housing units. Thus, population and housing impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant, which would be the case with the proposed Project, but potential impacts would be greater than the proposed Project as the Project’s beneficial effects resulting from the provision of needed jobs and housing would be reduced under Alternative B. Public Services Alternative B would generate an increase of approximately 12,671 residents in the City of Bakersfield that would increase the demand for public services. This increase, approximately 25 percent less than the proposed Project, would result in a lesser demand for police and fire services, as well as library, school, and park facilities, then the Project. Alternative B would provide 3 acres of open space (a 1.95-acre park and 1.05 acres of open space along the southwest boundary of the site) within the proposed residential areas. This would provide for a ratio of 2.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 on-site residents (964), which is less than the Project ratio of 3.1 acres per 1,000 on-site residents (1,284), both of which are in excess of regulatory requirements. Additionally, Alternative B would generate approximately 25 percent fewer students (65 Columbia Elementary students, 18 Fruitvale Junior High School students, and 59 Liberty High School students). As the payment of school fees per SB 50 would be required under Alternative B, similar to the proposed Project, potential impacts of both Alternative B and the proposed Project would be less than significant. Because Alternative B would provide for a lower ratio of parkland per on-site resident, but would result in overall less demand on public facilities, the less than significant impacts of both the proposed Project and Alternative B would be less under Alternative B as compared to the proposed Project. Utilities & Service Systems Alternative B would generate an increase of approximately 964 permanent residents and 3,869 employees that would increase the demand for utilities relative to existing site conditions. This increase in population, approximately 25 percent less than the Project, is assumed to generate approximately 25 percent less wastewater (1.8 cubic feet per second) and solid waste (37.3 tons per day), and would use approximately 25 percent less water (585.75 acre feet per year), electricity (319,157 kilowatts per year), City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 and natural gas (17,674,200 cubic feet per acre per day) than the Project. Thus, the less than significant impacts of both the proposed Project and Alternative B would be less under Alternative B as compared to the proposed Project. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative B, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities. Alternative B would also develop a mix of commercial and residential uses, provide infill development, and create an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors. However, although this Alternative includes the same uses as the proposed Project, because this Alternative does not provide those uses in the same quantity as the proposed Project, this Alternative does not meet the objectives as well as the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 C. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ZONING ALTERNATIVE This Alternative assumes the maximum allowable development of the proposed Project site consistent with the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site. Thus, no General Plan amendments or zone changes would be needed to implement this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the majority of the proposed Project site west of Coffee Road would be developed with low-density residential uses with a maximum of 687 dwelling units. In addition to residential uses, the proposed Project site would be developed with 525,000 square feet of commercial uses (40 percent office [210,000 square feet] and sixty percent retail [315,000 square feet], approximately the same ratio of office to retail uses as the proposed Project), 1,267,596 square feet of industrial uses, 175,000 square feet of public facilities, and 21 acres of open space and parks. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative C and the proposed Project is provided in Table VI-3. Table VI-3 Comparison of Alternative C: Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative and the Proposed Project Alternative C: Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 315,000 sf 1,400,000 sf a -1,085,000 sf -78% Office 210,000 sf 600,000 sf -390,000 sf -65% Commercial Subtotal 525,000 sf 2,000,000 sf -1,475,000 sf -74% Industrial 1,267,596 sf 0 sf +1,267,596 sf +100% Residential 687 du 425 du +262 du +62% Public Facilities 175,000 sf 0 sf +175,000 sf +100% Parks and Open Space 21 acres 4 acres +17 acres sf +525% Development Subtotal 1,967,596 sf 687 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du -32,404 sf +262 du -0.02% +62% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project and Alternative C include a 70,000 square-foot cinema. While the size of the buildings would would be almost twice that of buildings under the proposed Project, the massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would be similar to the proposed Project under this Alternative. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative C. Except as described above, other characteristics (e.g., lighting, landscaping, and utility connections) are assumed to be generally similar to those of the proposed Project, for the purpose of analyzing this City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Alternative. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative C as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative C below. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative C, no amendment to the General Plan or zone changes would be required to implement this Alternative as the proposed uses would be consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations for the site. The site would remain designated 36 acres of HI (Heavy Industrial), 69 acres LI (Light Industrial), 12 acres GC (General Commercial), 113 acres LR (Low-Density Residential), 21 acres OS-P (Parks and Recreational Facilities), and 4 acres PS (Public and Private School). Alternative C would be developed under the same development standards (building heights, setbacks, etc.) as the proposed Project and would locate residential uses in the southwest corner of the site, retail uses at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, and industrial uses east of and adjacent to Coffee Road. This arrangement of on-site land uses would create an appropriate interface between Alternative C and existing residential uses and existing and planned commercial uses, along Brimhall Road. However, this configuration would incorporate on-site industrial uses in close proximity to on-site residential uses. Overall, the land use effects of Alternative C in relation to existing land use would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project and no significant land use impacts would occur. Therefore, the less than significant land use and planning impacts of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Urban Decay Alternative C would introduce retail space to the proposed Project site. Economic impact analyses prepared in support of the proposed Project indicate that proposed Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, and would not cause existing retail space to become vacant, which could cause subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers resulting in urban decay and visual blight. Alternative C would provide less retail square footage than the proposed Project (315,000 square feet versus 1.4 million square feet). Therefore, while urban decay and visual blight impacts under Alternative C and the proposed Project would both be less than significant, Alternative C would have less impact than the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative C, fewer daily trips would be generated than the proposed Project. However, more traffic would be generated in comparison to the proposed Project during the AM peak hour as a result of the proposed industrial uses. It is assumed that this Alternative would provide for some level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities and that bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Under this Alternative, there would be similar development and a similar number of buildings would be constructed resulting in a similar amount of associated construction traffic. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the proposed Project’s traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that significant impacts at some Project intersections would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, the potentially significant unavoidable impacts of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar but would be greater under Alternative C due to the overall higher levels of traffic volumes during the AM peak hour under this Alternative. Aesthetics Alternative C would implement building setbacks, building heights, signage, and lighting per the requirements established for the proposed Project. Although Alternative C would provide 21 acres of open space, this Alternative would include substantial industrial development. Depending on the configuration of the open space and the buildings under this Alternative, there is a potential for this Alternative to yield a visual character that when viewed from off-site locations would be similar to that of the proposed Project. On the other hand, if greater development is placed along the perimeter of the site, particularly the southern perimeter along Brimhall Road and along both sides of Coffee Road, potential impacts to visual character would be greater under Alternative C. Assuming a site design that is sensitive to the site’s interfaces with off-site uses, the visual character impacts under this Alternative are concluded to be similar to the proposed Project. As such, although Alternative C would not provide for an as aesthetically pleasing design or landscaping as the proposed Project, it would upgrade the existing visual character of the site and would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area. As the proposed Project’s beneficial impacts related to aesthetics also would occur under Alternative C, visual impacts also would be less than significant under Alternative C, as would be the case with the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Alternative C would introduce additional sources of light and glare to the site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative C would implement a lighting plan that would reduce potential light and glare impacts. Thus, the less than significant light and glare impacts of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Geology & Soils Alternative C would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the proposed Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would require implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil. Therefore, potential impacts under Alternative C and the proposed Project would both be significant but mitigable to a less than significant level and Alternative C would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative C would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would require implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts to groundwater quality associated with infiltration of surface water, proper abandonment of wells, unauthorized well access, and conveyance of contaminants between aquifers. Alternative C would increase impervious surfaces on-site but would provide for storm water basins and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration opportunities similar to the Project. Thus, the potentially significant but mitigable to a less than significant level hydrology and water quality impacts of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative C would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), existing on-site petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the proposed Project site, and the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, or lead-based paint. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would require implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells. Thus, the potentially significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts would be similar under Alternative C as compared to the proposed Project. Industrial development under Alternative C has the potential to increase generation of hazardous waste, increase use of USTs and ASTs, and increase the potential for accidental upset. Thus, these potential impacts would be greater under Alternative C as compared to the proposed Project, but with compliance with applicable codes would yield a less than significant impact, which is the same conclusion reached relative to the proposed Project. While the proposed Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the proposed Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West Refinery, which is located east of the proposed Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. As Alternative C would introduce more permanent residents to the site than the proposed Project, more persons would have the potential to be exposed to the potential hazards associated with the Big West facility than with the proposed Project. Although Alternative C would introduce residential land uses in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery, as with the proposed Project, it would not contribute to the potential release of hazardous materials. Thus, while Big West’s expansion could increase the potential for hazards, Alternative C’s contribution to the potential release of hazardous materials are not cumulatively considerable and potential impacts would be considered less than significant. Mineral Resources Under Alternative C, development would occur within the proposed Project site that could potentially disrupt the extraction of mineral resources. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would require implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Biological Resources Alternative C would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. The approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices would be removed. Like the proposed Project, Alternative C would require implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts on biological resources of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative C would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site. Like the Project, Alternative C would implement Mitigations Measure J-1 and J-2 to further reduce the less than significant impacts associated with archaeological resources and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts on cultural resources of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative C would include development with associated grading and construction activities. While there would be more development and potentially more buildings constructed under this Alternative, the entire site would be graded in a similar fashion to the proposed Project, thus, this Alternative would generate similar amounts of fugitive dust, but other pollutant emissions during construction would be increased, when compared to the proposed Project as comparable levels of non-residential development would occur and 62 percent more residential development would occur under Alternative C. Therefore, implementation of Alternative C would have short-term, significant but mitigable regional air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Localized construction and odor impacts during construction would be similar to those of the proposed Project as peak construction activity levels are assumed to be the same even though more development is being constructed (i.e., the assumption is that construction would take longer rather than more at one time). Thus, Alternative C would have less than significant localized construction and odor impacts, as is the case with the proposed Project. Under Alternative C, fewer new traffic trips would be generated and fewer mobile source emissions would be generated. While emissions under Alternative C would be less than those of the proposed Project, the comparative impacts relative to regional operational emissions of ROG and NOx in 2015 and 2035 would be the same, although emissions of CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less under Alternative C, primarily resulting from the reduced vehicle trips under this alternative. With the presence City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 of 1.3 million square feet of industrial uses under this Alternative, it is forecasted that greater levels of hazardous pollutants would be emitted, although it is anticipated that impact levels would be less than significant, as is the case with the proposed Project. Alternative C would also be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although the large reduction in commercial square footage under Alternative C would reduce the level of consistency with those policies recognizing the benefits of locating retail uses in proximity to established residential areas and transit opportunities, as well as a reduction in jobs in proximity to existing residential development. Potential impacts associated with the exposure of future on-site residents to potential odors attributable to existing Big West refinery operations under Alternative C and the proposed Project would both be significant, although, as Alternative C would include more residents, the potential impact would be greater when compared to the proposed Project, primarily resulting from the reduced vehicle trips under this alternative. It is anticipated that greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative C than those forecasted for the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, both the proposed Project and Alternative C would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions pursuant to the provisions of AB 32 and would successfully implement the recommendations set forth in the 2006 CAT Report. In summary, while the emissions of the pollutants that are critical to the Bakersfield area would be reduced to less than significant levels under both Alternative C and the proposed Project, emissions during construction of the other pollutants would be greater under Alternative C, which is also the case for emissions of hazardous air pollutants. On the other hand, during operations, regional emissions, as well as local emissions and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative C. Although both the proposed Project and Alternative C would be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, Alternative C would implement certain policies to a lesser extent due to the substantial reduction in retail development. Furthermore, the significant odor impact to on-site residents from Big West operations would be increased under Alternative C due to the increase in residential development under this alternative. Noise Alternative C would require grading and construction activities at the site, although it is assumed that peak construction activity levels would be the same even though more development would be constructed (i.e., the assumption is that construction would take longer rather than more at one time). As peak construction activity levels would be similar, construction noise impacts attributable to Alternative C also would be similar to the proposed Project. As less traffic would be generated under this Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project, less additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways. However, the reductions in traffic levels under Alternative C would not be sufficient to eliminate the proposed Project’s significant impacts. As such, roadway noise impacts under this Alternative would be less than the proposed Project, but potential impacts under both Alternative C and the proposed Project would be significant. Even though much more development would occur under Alternative C, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 compliance with applicable regulations would reduce impacts from on-site operations to less than significant levels, similar to the proposed Project. Population and Housing Under Alternative C, the on-site population would increase to approximately 9,909 persons (including 2,075 permanent on-site residents residing in 687 units and 7,834 net employees). While the population and housing growth of Alternative C is more than the proposed Project, Alternative C is consistent with all applicable growth forecasts, would have a positive impact on the area’s jobs-housing balance and would be generally consistent with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. Thus, population and housing impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant, which is the case with the proposed Project but, because Alternative C provides a a greater beneficial impact through provision of more needed jobs and housing. Thus, potential impacts related to population and housing would be greater under the proposed Project as compared to Alternative C. Public Services Alternative C would generate an increase of approximately 2,075 residents that would increase the demand for public services. This increase, which is more than the proposed Project, would result in greater demands for police and fire services, as well as library, school, and park facilities, then the proposed Project. If even 50 percent of the 21 acres of open space under this Alternative were developed as parkland, this Alternative would provide a ratio of 5.1 acres of parkland per 1,000 on-site residents (2,075), which is greater than the Project ratio of 3.1 acres per 1,000 residents, and as such, is consistent with regulatory requirements, as is the case with the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative C would generate more students (276 Columbia Elementary students, 75 Fruitvale Junior High School students, and 171 Liberty High School students). As the payment of school fees per SB 50 would be required under Alternative C, similar to the proposed Project, potential impacts under both Alternative C and the proposed Project would be less than significant. However, because Alternative C would result in an increased demand on public facilities, the less than significant impacts related to public services would be greater under Alternative C as compared to the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Utilities & Service Systems Alternative C would generate an increase of approximately 2,075 permanent on-site residents and 7,834 net employees that would increase the demand for utilities. This increase would generate slightly less wastewater (approximately 2.2 cubic feet per second) and use slightly less water (approximately 4.6 acre feet per day), electricity (250,018 kilowatts per year), and natural gas (15,554,856 cubic feet per acre per day), and would generate more solid waste (76 tons per day) than the Project. Thus, the less than significant impacts related to utilities under both the proposed Project and Alternative C would be greater under Alternative C as compared to the proposed Project. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative C, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. Thus, Alternative C would meet some of the basic objectives of the Project. However, with Alternative C only providing approximately 26 percent of the commercial development included within the proposed Project, Alternative C would achieve to a much lesser degree the proposed Project’s basic objectives with regard to the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Furthermore, this Alternative would bring residential uses and public facilities in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery, which may increase hazards (see Section IV.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR). City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 D. RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE This Alternative assumes that only residential units would be developed on all portions of the proposed Project site including the portion of the site east of Coffee Road. This Alternative could yield up to a maximum of 1,429 low density residential dwelling units. The proposed size, massing, height, and design of the residential buildings would differ from the proposed Project as the residential units would be 1-to 2-story single-family homes and/or townhomes as compared to buildings of a much higher height and mass under the proposed Project. Roadway alignments and associated grading and drainage improvements would also differ. However, similar to the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative D. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative D and the proposed Project is provided in Table VI-4, Comparison of Alternative D: Residential Alternative and the Proposed Project. Except as described above, other characteristics (e.g. lighting, landscaping, and utility connections) are assumed to be generally similar to those of the proposed Project, for the purpose of analyzing this Alternative. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative D as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative D below. Table VI-4 Comparison of Alternative D: Residential Alternative and the Proposed Project Alternative D: Residential Alternative Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 0 sf 1,400,000 sf a -1,400,000 sf -100% Office 0 sf 600,000 sf -600,000 sf -100% Commercial Subtotal 0 sf 2,000,000 sf -2,000,000 sf -100% 100% Residential 1,429 du 425 du +1,004 du +236% Development Subtotal 0 sf 1,429 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du -2,000,000 sf +1,004 du -100% +236% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project includes a 70,000 square-foot cinema. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Land Use and Planning Under Alternative D, a General Plan amendment and zone changes would be required to designate 142 acres of the site for low-density residential use. As residential uses would be developed throughout the proposed Project site, including east of Coffee Road, potential incompatible land use patterns could result between Alternative D and existing and planned commercial uses along Brimhall Road as well as industrial uses to the east and north of the site. Thus, the less than significant land use and planning impacts of the proposed Project would be greater under Alternative D as compared to the proposed Project and significant land use impacts associated with Alternative D could occur. Urban Decay Alternative D would not introduce any new retail space to the proposed Project site, but would add additional residents to the area. As a result, development of the Alternative would have a beneficial impact on local retail establishments. While the economic impact analyses prepared in support of the Project indicate that Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, the Project’s potential impacts would be greater than those of Alternative D. Nonetheless, both Alternative D and the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to urban decay and the creation of potential urban blight. Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative D, additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways relative to existing conditions but would generate substantially less traffic in comparison to the proposed Project. Thus, the number of locations where significant impacts would occur would be substantially reduced under Alternative D when compared to the proposed Project. It is assumed that this Alternative would provide for some level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities and that bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar. Under this Alternative, there would be less development constructed resulting in a decrease in associated construction traffic. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the proposed Project’s traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-ofway to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that significant impacts at some Project intersections would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, the significant unavoidable impacts of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar but would City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 be less under Alternative D compared to the proposed Project as fewer trips would be generated at the proposed Project site. Aesthetics Alternative D would implement a pattern of on-site development that would be very different from the proposed Project. The proposed Project’s integrated and creative site design that establishes appropriate relationships with both on-and off-site uses would be replaced by a land use pattern typical of a singlefamily/townhome development. Alternative D would provide landscaping per applicable regulations and given the number of units developed is likely to include a park. As such, the visual character of the site would be one that continues the development patterns and style of the existing residential uses located to the south and west of the site. As such, Alternative D would upgrade the existing visual character of the site but would not serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area. Overall, the development of Alternative D would be aesthetically beneficial and therefore, less than significant impacts to visual resources would occur under Alternative D, as is the case with the proposed Project, although the “look” of the proposed Project site would be very different under Alternative D, when compared to the proposed Project. In terms of comparative impacts, the benefits of the proposed Project (i.e., creating a visual focal point and aesthetic identity of the area) are offset by the reduced building mass and continuation of off-site uses under Alternative D. For these reasons, the potential impacts of Alternative D and the proposed Project are concluded to be similar. Alternative D would introduce additional sources of light and glare to the site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative D would implement a lighting plan that would reduce potential light and glare impacts. However, the nature and extent of lighting required to support the proposed Project’s commercial uses would be notably greater than what would be required to support the 100 percent residential uses under Alternative D. Thus, while both Alternative D and the proposed Project would result in less than significant light and glare impacts, the potential impacts of Alternative D are concluded to be less than those attributable to the proposed Project. Geology & Soils Alternative D would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would require implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential impacts under Alternative D and the proposed Project would both be significant but mitigable to a less than significant level and Alternative D would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative D would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would require implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts to groundwater quality associated with infiltration of surface water, proper abandonment of wells, unauthorized well access, and conveyance of contaminants between aquifers. Alternative D would result in an increase in impervious surface on-site but would provide for storm water basins and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration opportunities similar to the proposed Project. Thus, the less than significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative D would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the Project site, and the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, and lead-based paint. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would require implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells. Thus, these significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts would be similar under Alternative D as compared to the proposed Project. While the proposed Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the proposed Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West Refinery which is located east of the proposed Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. Although Alternative D would introduce more permanent residents to the site than the proposed Project, as with the proposed Project, it would not contribute to the potential release of hazardous materials. Thus, while Big West’s expansion could increase the potential for hazards, Alternative D’s contribution to the potential release of hazardous materials are not cumulatively considerable and potential impacts would be considered less than significant. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Mineral Resources Under Alternative D, development would occur within the proposed Project site that could potentially disrupt extraction of mineral resources. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would require implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar. Biological Resources Alternative D would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. The approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices would be removed. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would require implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to biological resources of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative D would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site. Like the proposed Project, Alternative D would implement Mitigations Measure J-1 and J-2 to further reduce the less than significant impacts associated with archaeological resources and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to cultural resources of Alternative D and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative D would include development with associated grading and construction activities. While there would be less development constructed under this Alternative, the entire site would be graded in a similar fashion to the proposed Project. Thus, this Alternative would generate similar amounts of fugitive dust, but other pollutant emissions during construction would be less, when compared to the proposed Project. Given the reduction in development, the Project’s significant NOx impact, before mitigation, in 2011 would likely be sufficiently reduced so as to result in a less than significant impact under Alternative D. In comparison, the Project’s NOx impacts in 2011 are also less than significant, although the Project’s NOx emissions in 2011 are anticipated to be greater than those occurring under Alternative D. Localized construction and odor impacts during construction would be similar or less than those of the proposed City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Project as peak construction activity levels may be the same even though less development is being constructed. Thus, Alternative D would have less than significant localized construction and odor impacts, as is the case with the proposed Project. Under Alternative D, the change in land use from a mixed-use development under the proposed Project to an entirely low density residential development would generate substantially fewer new vehicle trips. The reduction in vehicle trips under Alternative D is likely to be sufficient to result in less than significant impacts, with the exception of ROG emissions in 2035, with the development of all three Project phases. While emissions under Alternative D would be substantially less than those of the proposed Project before mitigation, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce reduce the Project’s regional emissions to less than significant levels, so the comparative significance of impacts relative to regional operational emissions would be the same, although emissions would be less under Alternative D, with the exception noted above (i.e., NOx emissions in 2035). The proposed Project’s less than significant impact with regard to hazardous air pollutants would be essentially eliminated under Alternative D as very few truck deliveries would occur during operations of Alternative D. Alternative D would also be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although the elimination of all commercial uses under Alternative D would reduce the level of consistency with those policies recognizing the benefits of locating retail uses in proximity to established residential areas. While potential impacts associated with the exposure of future on-site residents to potential odors attributable to Big West refinery operations under Alternative D and the proposed Project would both be significant, Alternative D would include more residents and would therefore have a greater impact than the proposed Project. While the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be decreased under Alternative D, both the Project and Alternative D would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions pursuant to the provisions of AB 32 and would successfully implement the recommendations set forth in the 2006 CAT Report. Thus, potential GHG impacts would be less than significant under both Alternative D and the proposed Project. In summary, while the emissions of the pollutants that are critical to the Bakersfield area would be reduced to less than significant levels under both Alternative D and the proposed Project, emissions would be generally less under Alternative D, which is also the case for local emissions, emissions of hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, both the proposed Project and Alternative D would be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although air quality policies are advanced to a much lesser degree under Alternative D. Furthermore, the significant odor impact to on-site residents from Big West operations would be increased under Alternative D due to the increase in residential development under this alternative. Noise Alternative D would require grading and construction activities at the site, which would result in noise level increases similar to the proposed Project if the development under this Alternative in proximity to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the off-site noise sensitive receptors uses similar types and quantities of construction equipment, otherwise construction noise levels would be less under this Alternative. This Alternative would also add additional traffic to the surrounding roadways, but substantially less traffic would be generated in comparison to the proposed Project. While the reductions in traffic would reduce the proposed Project’s potentially significant impacts, the reductions in noise levels would not be sufficient enough to eliminate this impact. As such, roadway noise impacts under Alternative D, as is the case with the proposed Project, would be significant. Furthermore, noise impacts associated with on-site operations would be reduced under this Alternative, and would be less than significant, similar to the proposed Project. Population and Housing Under Alternative D, on-site population would increase to approximately 4,316 permanent on-site residents and housing would increase by 1,429 dwelling units. Alternative D would eliminate, and not replace nor substantially increase, on-site jobs, and thus, would not positively contribute to the jobshousing balance. Thus, population and housing impacts under Alternative D would be less than significant, which is the case with the proposed Project, but impacts would be greater than the proposed Project’s impacts due to the increased number of on-site residents as well as not realizing the proposed Project’s beneficial effects resulting from the provision of jobs and maintaining the local jobs-housing balance. Public Services Alternative D would generate an increase of approximately 4,316 permanent on-site residents that would increase the demand for public services. This increase, approximately 30 percent more permanent on-site residents than the proposed Project, would result in a greater demand for police and fire services, as well as library, school, and park facilities, then the proposed Project. Due to the size of the site it is assumed that park space would be provided and that the Alternative D would comply with all regulatory requirements with regard to the provision of parks. Additionally, Alternative D would generate approximately 30 percent more students (573 Columbia Elementary students, 156 Fruitvale Junior High School students, and 355 Liberty High School students). As the payment of school fees per SB 50 would be required under Alternative D, similar to the proposed Project, impacts of both Alternative D and the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, because Alternative D would substantially increase demand on public facilities, the less than significant impacts related to public services of both the proposed Project and Alternative D would be greater under Alternative D as compared to the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Utilities & Service Systems Alternative D would generate an increase of approximately 4,316 permanent residents that would increase the demand for utilities. This increase would generate less wastewater (approximately 2.2 cubic feet per second) and solid waste (24 tons per day), use less electricity (3,573 kilowatts per year), and natural gas (2,178,000 cubic feet per acre per day), and use more water (5.1 acre feet per day) than the proposed Project. Thus, while both the proposed Project and Alternative D would result in the less than significant impacts, the impacts of Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed Project. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative D would meet the proposed Project’s basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services; creating an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; and develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the City's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. However, and more importantly, Alternative D would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; and (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents. Furthermore, this Alternative would bring residential uses in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 E. INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE This Alternative assumes that 3,070,980 square feet of industrial uses would be developed on all portions of the proposed Project site. This level of industrial development corresponds to a site coverage of 30 percent with one-story buildings. Consistent with current industrial development in the City, anticipated industrial uses to be developed as part of this Alternative include warehouse and distribution facilities as well as light manufacturing. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative E. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative E as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative E below. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative E and the proposed Project is provided in Table VI-5. Table VI-5 Comparison of Alternative E: Industrial Alternative and the Proposed Project Alternative E: Industrial Alternative Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 0 sf 1,400,000 sf a -1,400,000 sf -100% Office 0 sf 600,000 sf -600,000 sf -100% Commercial Subtotal 0 sf 2,000,000 sf -2,000,000 sf -100% Industrial 3,070,980 sf 0 sf +3,070,980 sf +100% Residential 0 du 425 du -425 du -100% Development Subtotal 3,070,980 sf 0 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du +1,070,980 sf -425 du +54% -100% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project includes a 70,000 square-foot cinema. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative E, a General Plan amendment and zone changes would be required to designate the entire site for industrial use. This arrangement of on-site land uses would likely create a land use incompatibility between Alternative E and existing and planned residential uses located to the south and west of the proposed Project site. Nonetheless, the potential land use impacts of the proposed Project and Alternative E both would be less than significant, however, the potential impacts would be greater under Alternative E as compared to the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Urban Decay Alternative E would not introduce any new retail space to the proposed Project site. While the Economic Impact analyses prepared in support of the proposed Project indicate that the proposed Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, the proposed Project’s impacts would be greater than those of Alternative E. Nonetheless, both Alternative E and the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to urban decay and the creation of potential urban blight. Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative E, additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways, relative to existing conditions, but would generate less traffic in comparison to the proposed Project. Thus, the number of locations where significant impacts would occur would be reduced under Alternative E when compared to the proposed Project. It is assumed that this Alternative would provide for some level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities and that bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative C and the proposed Project would be similar. Under this Alternative, there would be similar amounts of development resulting in similar amounts of construction traffic. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the proposed Project’s traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that significant impacts at some Project intersections would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, the potential significant unavoidable impacts of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar, but would be less under Alternative E than the proposed Project as fewer trips would be generated at the proposed Project site. Aesthetics Alternative E would implement building setbacks, building heights, signage, and lighting per the requirements established for the proposed Project. Depending on the configuration of the buildings and the open space under this Alternative, there is a potential for this Alternative to yield a visual character that when viewed from off-site locations would be similar to that of the proposed Project. On the other hand, if industrial uses that are visually unsightly or if the Alternative’s site’s edges were not appropriately integrated into existing land use patterns, particularly the southern and western perimeters as well as along both sides of Coffee Road, impacts to visual character would be greater under Alternative City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 E. Assuming an Alternative E site design that is sensitive to the site’s interfaces with off-site uses, the visual character impacts under this Alternative are concluded to be similar to the proposed Project and less than significant, as is the case with the proposed Project. Alternative E would introduce additional sources of light and glare to the site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative E would implement a lighting plan that would reduce potential light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the less than significant light and glare impacts of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. Geology & Soils Alternative E would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the proposed Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would require implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential impacts under Alternative E and the proposed Project would both be significant but mitigable to less than significant levels and Alternative E would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative E would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would require implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts to groundwater quality associated with infiltration of surface water, proper abandonment of wells, unauthorized well access, and conveyance of contaminants between aquifers to less than significant levels. Although Alternative E would result in an increase in impervious surface on-site compared to the proposed Project, Alternative E would also provide for storm water basins and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration opportunities similar to the proposed Project. Thus, the less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative E would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the proposed Project site, and the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, and lead-based paint. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would require implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells. Thus, the potentially significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts would be similar under Alternative E as compared to the proposed Project. Industrial development under Alternative E would have the potential to increase generation of hazardous waste, increase use of USTs and ASTs, and increase the potential for accidental upset. Thus, these impacts would be greater under Alternative E as compared to the proposed Project, however, with compliance with all applicable regulations any potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, as is the case with the proposed Project. Alternative E would introduce no permanent residents to the site as compared to the proposed Project. However, Alternative E would introduce industrial uses in close proximity to existing residential land uses to the west and south of the site. Therefore, although potential impacts from the release of hazardous waste would be considered less than significant, impacts would be greater under Alternative E when compared to the proposed Project. Mineral Resources Under Alternative E, development would occur within the proposed Project site that could potentially disrupt disrupt extraction of mineral resources. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would require implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Biological Resources Alternative E would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. The approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices would be removed. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would require implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to biological resources of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative E would require construction and grading over the entirety of the proposed Project site. Like the proposed Project, Alternative E would implement Mitigations Measure J-1 and J-2 to further reduce the less than significant impacts associated with archaeological resources and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant level impacts to cultural resources of Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative E would include development with associated grading and construction activities. Although more construction would occur under this Alternative when compared to the proposed Project (2 million square feet and 425 residential units under the Project vs. 3 million square feet under Alternative E), construction emissions would be comparable between the two. Therefore, implementation of Alternative E would have short-term, significant but mitigable regional air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Localized construction and odor impacts during construction would be similar to those of the proposed Project as peak construction activity levels are assumed to be the same. Thus, Alternative E would have less than significant localized construction and odor impacts, as would be the case with the proposed Project. Under Alternative E, additional traffic would be added to the surrounding roadways when compared to existing conditions, but less traffic would be generated by Alternative E when compared to the proposed Project, as industrial uses generate fewer vehicle trips than retail and office uses. While emissions under Alternative E would be less than those of the proposed Project before mitigation, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce regional emissions to less than significant levels, so the comparative significance conclusions relative to regional operational emissions would be the same, although emissions would be less under Alternative E. With the presence of three-million square feet of industrial uses under this Alternative, it is forecasted that greater levels of hazardous pollutants would be City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-43 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 emitted, although it is anticipated that potential impact levels would be less than significant, as is the case with the proposed Project. Alternative E would also be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although the elimination of commercial square footage under Alternative E would reduce the level of consistency with those policies recognizing the benefits of locating retail uses in proximity to established residential areas and transit opportunities, etc. With the elimination of residential units, the Project’s significant odors impact attributable to Big West refinery operations would not occur under Alternative E. Although natural gas and electricity consumption would be greater under Alternative E, it is anticipated that greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative E would be less than those forecasted for the proposed Project due to the reduced levels of vehicle travel under Alternative E. Notwithstanding this difference, both the proposed Project and Alternative E would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, pursuant to the provisions of AB 32 and would successfully implement the recommendations set forth in the 2006 CAT Report, thereby resulting in a less than significant impact. In summary, while the emissions of the pollutants that are critical to the Bakersfield area would be less than significant under both Alternative E and the proposed Project, criteria pollutant emissions at both regional and local levels, as well as GHG emissions would be less under Alternative E. However, emissions of hazardous air pollutants would be increased under Alternative E, and both the proposed Project and Alternative E would be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, although Alternative E would implement the applicable air quality policies to an appreciably lesser extent. On an overall basis potential impacts would be less under Alternative E, and Alternative E eliminates the proposed Project’s significant operational odor impact. Noise Alternative E would require grading and construction activities at the site, which would result in noise level increases similar to the proposed Project, if the development under this Alternative that occurs in proximity to the off-site noise sensitive receptors is of a similar size, otherwise construction noise levels would be less or greater under this Alternative. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction noise levels would be similar to those of the proposed Project. This Alternative would also add additional traffic to the surrounding roadways, but less traffic would be generated in comparison to the proposed Project. While the reductions in traffic would reduce the Alternative’s significant impacts compared to the proposed Project, the reductions in noise levels would not be sufficient enough to eliminate this potential impact. As such, roadway noise impacts under Alternative E, as is the case with the Project, would be significant. Additionally, industrial uses could generate greater amounts of on-site noise associated with operation of the Alternative, depending on the types and locations of the industrial uses, as compared to the proposed Project. In addition, the greater number of truck trips that would occur under this Alternative would have greater noise impacts upon nearby noise sensitive residential uses. As such, noise impacts under this Alternative would be similar with regard to construction, less with regard to roadway noise and greater with regard to on-site noise during operations of the industrial uses. However, both the Alternative and the proposed Project’s potentially significant impacts attributable to City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-44 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the increases in roadway noise levels generated as well as the less than significant noise impacts associated with construction and operations would be the same. Population and Housing Under Alternative E, no housing would be developed. Alternative E would provide a total of 6,111 net jobs and would add to the jobs-housing balance in the area. Thus, population and housing impacts under Alternative E would be less than significant, which is the case with the proposed Project, but impacts would be greater than the proposed Project’s impacts as the Project’s beneficial effects resulting from the provision of needed housing would not occur under Alternative E. Public Services Under Alternative E, no housing would be developed and the Alternative would not result in an increased residential population that would contribute to increased demands on existing public services. Alternative E would not provide beneficial park facilities proposed as part of the Project. No school age children would relocate to the site and there would not be an increased demand for library or park facilities. As a result of the additional 6,111 net new employees on-site, demands for police and fire service would increase. Additionally, industrial operations could increase the workload of the City’s Fire Department due to the presence of industrial uses as well as general types of calls for fire and police services. Therefore, Alternative E would place an increased demand on public services for police and fire and decreased demand on libraries and parks. Nonetheless, the impacts of Alternative E and the proposed Project would both be less than significant. Utilities & Service Systems Alternative E would generate an increase of approximately 3,070,980 square feet of industrial uses that would increase the demand for utilities over existing conditions at the proposed Project site. This Alternative would generate approximately the same amount of wastewater (approximately 2.4 cubic feet per second) and solid waste (50 tons per day), would use slightly less water (4.2 acre feet per day), and would use more electricity (470,000 kilowatts per year), and natural gas (28,200,000 cubic feet per acre per day) than the proposed Project. Therefore, the less than significant impacts on utilities of both Alternative E and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-45 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative E would meet the proposed Project’s basic objectives with regard to creating an infill development in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. However, and more importantly, Alternative E would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would fail to accomplish the following: (1) create a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; (3) locating new commercial uses along transportation corridors; (4) establishing a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; (5) create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play; and (6) develop parks, trails, and open space that would link to the city's existing park system and accommodate the recreational needs of residents. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-46 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 F. ALTERNATIVE SITE This Alternative would consist of developing the proposed Project as proposed at an alternative location. The site identified as the proposed Project’s “Alternative Site” is the proposed West Ming site, located west of Buena Vista Road and south of the Kern River in Southwest Bakersfield. The West Ming site is approximately 2,182 acres and is currently used for agricultural and oil production activities. The site is zoned for the West Ming Specific Plan (a neighborhood design community) that is not yet under construction. The West Ming project proposes 7,450 residential units, 478,800 square feet of commercial (including office, service, and retail) 331,200 square feet of town center commercial and mixed use (including office, service, and retail), and 1,135,000 square feet of special uses (light industrial, mineral and petroleum, public facilities, open space, parks, public transportation, and office). Based on the size of the West Ming site it has been determined that the West Ming site is large enough to accommodate both the West Ming project as it is currently proposed as well as the land uses of the proposed Project. As such, the portion of the West Ming site that could accommodate the proposed Project’s land uses would be developed with 2,000,000 square feet of commercial uses, 425 residential dwelling units, and 4 acres of parks and open space. The proposed Project site at Coffee Road and Brimhall Road would not be developed and the physical conditions of the proposed Project site would remain as they are today, including primarily vacant land, a former refinery, two office buildings, a truck repair and maintenance facility, parking areas, remediation facilities, City retention areas, transmission corridor, and two active oil wells. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative F and the proposed Project Project is provided in Table VI-6. Table VI-6 Comparison of Alternative F: Alternative Site and the Proposed Project Alternative F: Alternative Site Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 1,400,000 sf a 1,400,000 sf a 0 sf 0% Office 600,000 sf 600,000 sf 0 sf 0% Commercial Subtotal 2,000,000 sf 2,000,000 sf 0 sf 0% Residential 425 du 425 du 0 du 0% Development Subtotal 2,000,000 sf 425 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du 0 sf 0 du 0% 0% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project and Alternative F include a 70,000 square-foot cinema. The size, massing, height, and design of the buildings as well other characteristics (e.g. lighting and landscaping), and associated grading and drainage improvements would be developed as proposed at the Project site for the most part, although they would be completed at a different location than the proposed Project. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project and/or the West City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-47 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Ming project are proposed for Alternative F as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative F below. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative F, no General Plan amendment or zone changes would be required to implement Alternative F as the proposed uses would be consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Code designations for the Alternative Site. However, a Specific Plan amendment would be required to implement Alternative F development program as well as the development standards established for the proposed Project. The Alternative Site would remain designated as West Ming Specific Plan which includes 448 acres of West Ming Low Density Residential (WM-LR), 980 acres of West Ming Low Medium Density Residential (WM-LMR), 378 acres of West Ming High Medium Density Residential (WM-HMR), 43 acres of West Ming High Density Residential (WM-HR), 41 acres of West Ming Office Commercial (WM-OC), 9 acres of West Ming General Commercial (WM-GC), 63 acres of West Ming Mixed Use (WM-MU), and 220 acres of West Ming Special (WM-SU). The arrangement of land uses set forth in the West Ming Specific Plan would create an acceptable interface between Alternative F and the West Ming project as well as the existing residential and agricultural uses and groundwater recharge areas that surround the site. Although Alternative F would increase density on the West Ming site, floor area ratios would be within allowable limits. Overall, the land use effects of Alternative F in relation to existing land use would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project and land use impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the less than significant land use and planning impacts of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Urban Decay Alternative F would introduce additional retail space to the West Ming site than is currently contemplated by the West Ming Specific Plan. Economic impact analyses prepared in support of the proposed Project indicate that proposed Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, and would not cause existing retail space to become vacant, with subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers resulting in urban decay and visual blight. Alternative F would provide the same retail square footage as the proposed Project. Therefore, urban decay and visual blight impacts under Alternative F and the proposed Project would be the same and both would be less than significant. Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative F, the Project’s traffic volumes would be added to the West Ming site. This Alternative would provide for similar pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-48 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 and bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Under this Alternative, there would be similar amounts of development resulting similar amounts of construction traffic. It is anticipated that the traffic impacts of Alternative F, albeit occurring at different locations, would be reduced to less than significant levels via mitigation measures, as is the case with the proposed Project. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that significant impacts at some Project intersections would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, the significant unavoidable traffic impacts of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Aesthetics Alternative F would implement building setbacks, building heights, signage, and lighting per requirements consistent with those set forth for the proposed Project. With the addition of Alternative F to the West Ming site, this Alternative would result in a more dense built environment compared to what is currently contemplated for the West Ming site. As such, the visual character, including views from the West Ming project as well as from surrounding properties, would be effected by Alternative F. Notwithstanding, Alternative F would upgrade the existing visual character of the site and would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area. Therefore, the less than significant impacts to visual resources of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Alternative F would introduce additional sources of light and glare to the site. As with the proposed Project, Alternative F would be required to comply with mandatory obligations related to lighting and glare contained in the City’s municipal code that would reduce potential light and glare impacts. Thus, the less than significant light and glare impacts of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Geology & Soils Alternative F would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the proposed Project, Alternative F would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction and soil erosion. Therefore, impacts under Alternative F and the proposed Project would both be significant but mitigable to a less than significant level and Alternative F would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-49 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative F would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the proposed Project, Alternative F would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Additionally, this Alternative may require development of a lake management plan to reduce impacts to the five-acre lake that is proposed as part of the West Ming project. Further, because this Alternative may propose the construction of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, the existing levee would need to be extended along Ming Avenue to its intersection with the proposed West Beltway. With extension of the levee, the 100-year flood hazard designation would be removed from the area of proposed development. Alternative F would increase impervious surface on-site but would provide for storm water detention and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration opportunities similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts under Alternative F and the proposed Project would be significant but mitigable to a less than significant level and Alternative F would have a similar impact on hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Petroleum extraction activities would continue on portions of the West Ming site that may include Alternative F. Alternative F would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing underground pipelines, existing on-site petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, existing irrigation pipelines that potentially contain asbestos containing material, and on-site electrical transformers that potentially contain polychlorinated biphenyls. Like the proposed Project, Alternative F would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts as a result of soil contamination, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos containing materials, and existing and abandoned wells. In addition, this Alternative would comply with the requirements of the Pipeline Development Policy of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. Thus, overall, these potentially significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts would be similar under Alternative F as compared to the proposed Project. Hazardous waste generation would be the same as the proposed Project as the same land uses are proposed. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations, impacts of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be the same and less than significant. While the proposed Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-50 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Refinery, which is located east of the proposed Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. Alternative F would introduce permanent residents to a site at a distance from the Big West facility. Therefore, exposure to the potential hazards associated with the Big West facility would not occur under Alternative F and potential impacts would be less under Alternative F when compared to the proposed Project, which impacts are also less than significant. Mineral Resources Under Alternative F, petroleum extraction activities would continue on portions of the West Ming site but the proposed development could potentially disrupt the extraction of mineral resources. Alternative F would require implementation of a petroleum integration plan to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral mineral resource. Therefore, the significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Biological Resources Alternative F would require construction and grading over portions of the West Ming site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. Like the proposed Project, Alternative F would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts on biological resources of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative F would require construction and grading over the entirety of the West Ming site. Like the proposed Project, Alternative F would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the significant but mitigable to a less than significant level impacts on cultural resources of Alternative F and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative F would include the same amount of development as the proposed Project and is assumed to require comparable grading and construction activities. As the same land uses would be developed at the West Ming site that are proposed at the Project site, the regional construction and operational air quality impacts of Alternative F would be the same as those forecasted for the proposed Project site. As such, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-51 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 regional emissions, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, would be reduced to less than significant levels. Localized concentrations of emissions during construction and operations are also anticipated to be less than significant as is the case with the proposed Project. Similarly, emissions of hazardous air pollutants are also anticipated to result in a less than significant impact. Both Alternative F and the proposed Project would also be consistent with applicable air quality plans and policies. As Alternative F is located a fair distance from the Big West refinery, the proposed Project’s significant impacts from odors from the Big West refinery would not occur at the Alternative Site. Noise Alternative F would require grading and construction activities, which would result in increased noise levels. These noise levels would be comparable to those at the proposed Project site and would be similarly less than significant. The additional traffic generated by Alternative F would be the same as the proposed Project, although the traffic for the most part would occur on different roadways. Notwithstanding, it is anticipated that roadway noise impacts under Alternative F would be both similar to the proposed Project and significant. On-site operational noise impacts are anticipated to be similar and less than significant as is the case with the proposed Project. Population and Housing The population and housing impacts of Alternative F would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial development would occur. As a result, Alternative F would be consistent with applicable growth forecasts and the applicable housing policies set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Housing Element As a result, population and housing impacts of Alternative F and the proposed Project would would be similar and less than significant. Public Services The impacts of Alternative F with regard to increased demands for public services would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial development would occur. As a result, the public service impacts of Alternative F would be similar and less than significant. Utilities & Service Systems Existing infrastructure is not as available at the Alternative site location in comparison to the proposed Project. However, the impacts of Alternative F with regard to increased utility and service system demands would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-52 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 development would occur. As a result, impacts of Alternative F with regard to increased utility and service system demands would be similar and less than significant. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative F would meet some of the basic objectives of the proposed Project as it would locate new commercial uses along transportation corridors; establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of its residents; and create an attractive, walkable environment for people to work, live, and play. On the other hand, Alternative F would not implement several of the Project’s key basic objectives, particularly as they apply to northwest Bakersfield, in terms of the following: (1) creating a flexible, market-driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of [northwest] Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses; (2) locating commercial development in proximity to existing and planned [northwest Bakersfield] residential development to achieve reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels; and (3) provide a sustainable, infill development by locating uses in an area with existing infrastructure and public services. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-53 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 G. ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT This Alternative would consist of developing the Project as proposed while also realigning Brimhall Road to run through the Project site as shown in Figure VI-1. A tabular comparison of the land uses comprising Alternative G and the proposed Project is provided in Table VI-7. Table VI-7 Comparison of Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment and the Proposed Project Alternative G: Alternative Roadway Alignment Proposed Project Numerical Difference Percent Change Commercial Retail 1,400,000 sf a 1,400,000 sf a 0 sf 0% Office 600,000 sf 600,000 sf 0 sf 0% Commercial Subtotal 2,000,000 sf 2,000,000 sf 0 sf 0% Residential 425 du 425 du 0 du 0% Development Subtotal 2,000,000 sf 425 du 2,000,000 sf 425 du 0 sf 0 du 0% 0% Notes: sf = square feet; du = dwelling units a Project and Alternative G include a 70,000 square-foot cinema. The size, massing, height, and design of the buildings as well as other characteristics (e.g. lighting, landscaping, and utility connections), and associated grading and drainage improvements would be developed as proposed at the Project site. Like the proposed Project, all of the existing on-site uses except for the oil wells, remediation facilities, City retention areas, and transmission facilities would be demolished as part of Alternative G. When applicable, mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Project are proposed for Alternative G as noted. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project are compared to the potential impacts of Alternative G below. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-54 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Land Use and Planning Under Alternative G, a General Plan amendment and zone changes would be required to reclassify approximately 71 acres of the site to GC (General Commercial) land uses with C-2/PCD (Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development) zoning, 141 acres to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) land uses with C-C/PCD (Commercial Center/Planned Commercial Development) zoning, and 24 acres to HMR (High-Medium Density Residential) land uses with R-3/PUD (Multiple-Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zoning, similar to the proposed Project. Alternative G would require the same discretionary actions and be developed in a similar configuration with similar development standards as the proposed Project; e.g., locating residential uses in the southwest corner of the site, retail uses at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, and office uses east of Coffee Road. This arrangement of on-site land uses would create an appropriate interface between Alternative G land uses and existing residential uses as well as existing and planned commercial uses, along Brimhall Road. Like the Project, Alternative G would be consistent with the goals and polices of all applicable land use plans. Thus, the less than significant land use and planning impacts of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Urban Decay Analyses prepared in support of the Project indicate that Project development would not have a negative effect on the viability of existing commercial businesses within the City, which in turn could cause existing retail space to become vacant, with subsequent physical deterioration of the vacant or partially occupied retail centers resulting in urban decay and visual blight. Alternative G would provide the same retail square footage as the proposed Project. Therefore, urban decay and visual blight impacts under Alternative G and the proposed Project would be the same and both would be less than significant. Figure VI-1 Alternative G, Alternative Roadway Alignment Source: RTKL, 6/9/2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-56 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-57 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Transportation/Traffic Under Alternative G, the Project’s traffic volumes would be added to the surrounding roadways and Brimhall Road would be realigned to run through the Project site. It is not anticipated that the realignment of Brimhall Road would substantially alter the amount or distribution of traffic analyzed for the proposed Project; therefore, it is assumed that the traffic analysis completed for the proposed Project would be substantially the same as for this Alternative. This Alternative would provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would tie into existing facilities and bus service to the site would be coordinated with Golden Empire Transit, therefore, the less than significant impacts to alternative transportation facilities of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be the same. Under this Alternative, there would be similar amounts of development resulting similar amounts of construction and operational traffic. While the proposed Project would generate notable volumes of traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, all of the Project’s traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. However, in the event that the RTIF improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation for whatever reason or are determined to be infeasible or if sufficient right-of-way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, it is conservatively assumed that additional significant impacts at some Project intersections and street segments would remain and be unavoidable. Thus, the significant unavoidable impacts of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Aesthetics Alternative G would contain similar types of land uses, building setbacks, building heights, signage, lighting, and landscaping as the Project. While there would be a realignment of Brimhall Road under Alternative G, the site’s overall visual characteristics, including views from surrounding properties, would be similar to the Project. Like the Project, Alternative G would upgrade the existing visual character of the site and serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area. Therefore, the less than significant impacts to visual resources of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. As with the proposed Project, Alternative G would implement a lighting plan that would reduce potential light and glare impacts such that less than significant impacts would occur for all off-site uses. Thus, the less than significant light and glare impacts of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-58 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Geology & Soils Alternative G would conform to all applicable California Building Code (CBC) requirements to the extent they are implemented by the City to reduce the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event. Like the Project, Alternative G would require implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1 to reduce potentially significant geologic and seismic hazards associated with liquefaction, dynamic compaction, slope stability, and expansive soil. Therefore, impacts under Alternative G and the proposed Project would both be significant but mitigable (i.e., less than significant) and Alternative G would have a similar impact on geologic and seismic hazards as the proposed Project. Hydrology & Water Quality Alternative G would result in construction and operation activities that could result in erosion erosion or sedimentation that would affect site drainage and surface or groundwater quality. Like the Project, Alternative G would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to minimize water quality impacts to surface water. Alternative G would increase impervious surfaces on-site and provide for storm water basins and retention areas that would provide water treatment and infiltration opportunities similar to the Project. Like the Project, Alternative G would require implementation of Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts to groundwater quality associated with infiltration of surface water, proper abandonment of wells, unauthorized well access, and conveyance of contaminants between aquifers. Therefore, the significant but mitigable impacts related to hydrology and water quality of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Alternative G would result in construction and demolition activities with the potential to disturb existing Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), existing on-site petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils and groundwater beneath the Project site, and the existing buildings that potentially contain asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, or lead-based paint. Like the Project, Alternative G would require implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-5 to reduce potentially significant impacts to soil and groundwater contamination, disturbance of ASTs and USTs, and existing and abandoned wells. Thus, these significant but mitigable impacts would be similar under Alternative G as compared to the proposed Project. While the Project site does not pose any unmitigated impacts to the environment, future occupants of the Project site would be subject to the impacts attributable to operations at the Big West Refinery, which is located east of the Project site on the east side of the Friant-Kern Canal. Although Alternative G would City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-59 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 introduce residential land uses in closer proximity to the Big West Refinery, as with the proposed Project, it would not contribute to the potential release of hazardous materials. Thus, while Big West’s expansion could increase the potential for hazards, Alternative G’s contribution to the potential release of hazardous materials are not cumulatively considerable and potential impacts would be considered less than significant. Mineral Resources Under Alternative G, development would occur within the Project site that could potentially disrupt the extraction of mineral resources. Like the Project, Alternative G would require implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, the significant but mitigable impacts to oil and mineral resources of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Biological Resources Alternative G would require construction and grading over the entirety of the Project site that would potentially disrupt existing wildlife activity and vegetation. The approximately 25 cultivated trees present as landscaping around the ConocoPhillips offices would be removed. Like the Project, Alternative G would require implementation of Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with special-status wildlife species and compliance with policies and ordinances. Therefore, the significant but mitigable impacts on biological resources of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Cultural Resources Alternative G would require construction and grading over the entirety of the Project site. Like the Project, Alternative G would implement Mitigations Measure J-1 and J-2 to further reduce the less than significant impacts associated with archaeological resources and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure J-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with human remains. Therefore, the significant but mitigable impacts on cultural resources of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar. Air Quality Alternative G would include development with associated grading and construction activities similar to the proposed Project (i.e., the entire site would be graded in a similar fashion to the proposed Project). Thus, this Alternative would generate similar amounts of fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-60 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 during construction, when compared to the proposed Project. Thus, implementation of Alternative G would have short-term, significant but mitigable regional air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Localized construction and odor impacts during construction would be similar to those of the proposed Project as peak construction activity levels would be the same. Thus, Alternative G would have similar and less than significant localized construction and odor impacts, as compared with the proposed Project. Under Alternative G, the same traffic trips and stationary source emissions would be generated as the proposed Project. While emissions under Alternative G would be similar to those of the proposed Project before mitigation, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce regional emissions to less than significant levels, so the comparative impacts relative to regional operational emissions would be the same. The Project’s less than significant impact with regard to hazardous air pollutants would be the same under Alternative G. Alternative G would also be consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies, as is the case with the proposed Project, as the same types and quantities of land uses would be developed. Impacts associated with exposure of future on-site occupants resulting from potential odors attributable to Big West refinery operations under Alternative G and the proposed Project would both be significant. While the Project’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions would be the same under the Alternative G, both the Project and Alternative would implement measures to reduce GHG emissions pursuant to the provisions of AB 32 and would successfully implement the recommendations set forth in the 2006 CAT Report. In summary, emissions of the pollutants that are critical to the Bakersfield area would be the same and reduced to less than significant levels under both Alternative G and the proposed Project, and emissions of other pollutants would be the same under Alternative G, which is also the case for local emissions, emissions of hazardous air pollutants and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, both the Project and Alternative G are consistent with all applicable air quality plans and policies. Furthermore, those issues for which the Project results in significant impacts are the same for Alternative G. Noise Alternative G would require grading and construction activities at the site, which could result in noise level increases similar to the Project if the development under this Alternative in proximity to the off-site noise sensitive receptors is of similar size and use as the Project. These noise levels would be comparable to those at the Project site and would be similarly less than significant. The additional traffic generated by Alternative G would be the same as the proposed Project. On-site operational noise impacts are anticipated to be similar and less than significant as is the case with the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-61 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Population and Housing The population and housing impacts of Alternative G would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial development would occur. As a result, Alternative G would be consistent with applicable growth forecasts and the applicable housing policies set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Housing Element As a result, population and housing impacts of Alternative G and the proposed Project would be similar and less than significant. Public Services The impacts of Alternative G with regard to increased demands for public services would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial development would occur. As a result, the public service impacts of Alternative G would be similar and less than significant. Utilities & Service Systems The The impacts of Alternative G with regard to increased demands for utilities and service services would be the same as the proposed Project as the same amount of residential and commercial development would occur. As a result, the public service impacts of Alternative G would be similar and less than significant. Consistency with Project Objectives Alternative G, as is the case with the proposed Project, would serve to transform an underutilized site into an area that would create economic and housing opportunities. Alternative G would also develop a mix of commercial and residential uses and provide infill development. Alternative G, however, would not create an attractive, walkable environment in proximity to existing and planned residential development and transportation corridors to the same extent as the proposed Project. The proposed Project presents a predominantly self-contained mixed-use development that insulates pedestrians from the surrounding thoroughfares. Alternative G, in contrast, would realign Brimhall Road to run through the project site. Directing Brimhall Road through the project site could increase pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and, therefore, would not meet the project goal or objective of creating a walkable environment to encourage visitors and residents to walk throughout the commercial center to the same degree as the proposed Project. Accordingly, Alternative G would not meet the proposed Project goals and objects to the same degree as the proposed Project. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-62 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 H. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The State CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative to the Proposed Project and, if the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project Alternative,” the identification of an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. An environmentally superior alternative is an alternative to the proposed Project that would reduce and/or eliminate the unmitigated, significant adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposed Project without creating other significant impacts and without substantially reducing and/or eliminating the environmental benefits attributable to the proposed Project. Selection of an environmentally superior alternative was based, first, on an evaluation of the extent to which the alternatives reduce or eliminate the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project, and, second, on an across the board comparison of the remaining environmental impacts of each alternative. The relative environmental characteristics are comparatively summarized in Table VI-8, which presents the conclusions from each of the individual alternative sections above. The table indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impacts associated with each environmental category would be “Similar,” “Better” or “Worse” than those of the proposed Project. An absolute determination of the environmentally superior alternative for a project like the proposed Project is difficult for two reasons. First, due to the scope of the Project with multiple proposed uses to meet varying objectives, alternative projects invariably lead to “Better” impact regarding some environmental categories, and “Worse” impact regarding others. The identification of which categories should prevail in an overall analysis is subject to differing values from from one reader to the next. Second, it is difficult to develop a total picture because some categories are relatively more or less important, and cannot be simply summed. Nonetheless, per the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative (Alternative A) would be the environmentally superior alternative, as the significant impacts that would occur with the proposed Project would not occur with this Alternative. CEQA requires that when the No Project Alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, another alternative needs to be selected as environmentally superior. Of the remaining alternatives, the Residential Alternative (Alternative D) is selected as the environmentally superior alternative due to its relative reductions in traffic and noise impacts as well as its greater compatibility with existing off-site residential uses to the south and west of the Project site. However, this Alternative would bring residential uses closer to the Big West refinery. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-63 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Land Use Physical/Zoning Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Worse Worse Similar Similar Consistency with Polices/Plans Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Worse Worse Similar Similar Urban Decay Visual Character Less than Significant Impact Better Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Transportation/Traffic Intersection LOS Significant and Unavoidable Impact Better Better Worse Better Better Similar Similar Street Segment LOS Less Than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Better Better Similar Similar Freeway Segment LOS Less Than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Better Better Similar Similar Aesthetics Visual Character Less than Significant Impact Worse Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Light and Glare Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Better Similar Similar Similar Geology & Soils Fault Rupture Less than Significant Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Ground Shaking Less than Significant Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Liquefaction Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Subsidence Less than Significant Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Dynamic Compaction Less than Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-64 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Significant Impact with Mitigation Dam Failure Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Slope Stability Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Soil Erosion Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Expansive Soil Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Hydrology & Water Quality Storm Water Runoff Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Flooding and Inundation Less than Significant Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Surface Water Quality Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Groundwater Hydrology Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Groundwater Quality Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-65 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Hazardous & Hazardous Materials Soil & Groundwater Contamination Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Worse Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Emergency Procedures Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Hazardous Materials and Waste Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Worse Similar Worse Similar Similar Above Ground Storage Tanks Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Worse Similar Worse Similar Similar Underground Storage Tanks Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Worse Similar Worse Similar Similar ACB, LBP, and PCBs Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Existing and Abandoned Wells Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Accidental Upset Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Worse Similar Worse Better Similar Remediation Activities Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Better Similar Cumulative Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Worse Worse Better Similar Oil & Mineral Resources Loss of availability of a known mineral resource Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-66 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Biological Resources Special-Status Wildlife Species Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Compliance with Policies and Ordinances Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Historical Resources Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Archaeological Resources Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Paleontological Resources Less than Significant Impact Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Human Remains Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Air Quality Construction Emissions Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Better Worse Better Similar Similar Similar Operational Emissions Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Odors Significant and Unavoidable Impact Better Better Worse Worse Better Better Similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-67 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Noise Temporary Increases in Noise (Construction) Less Than Significant Better Similar Similar Better Similar Similar Similar Operational Traffic Noise (Off-Site Locations) Significant and Unavoidable Impact Better Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Operational Traffic Noise (On-Site Locations) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Land Use Compatibility Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Similar Similar Better Worse Similar Similar On-Site Non-Vehicular Noise Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Better Better Similar Better Better Worse Similar Similar Cumulative Noise Significant and Unavoidable Impact Better Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Population and Housing Population Less than Significant Impact Better Better Similar Similar Better Similar Similar Housing Less than Significant Impact Worse Worse Better Better Worse Similar Similar Employment Less than Significant Impact Worse Worse Better Worse Better Similar Similar City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VI. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VI-68 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VI-8 Alternatives Comparison IMPACT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT ALT A (No Project) ALT B (Reduced Intensity) ALT C (General Plan) ALT D (Residential) ALT E (Industrial) ALT F (Alternative Site) ALT G (Alternative Roadway Alignment) Public Services Fire Protection Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Worse Worse Similar Similar Police Protection Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Worse Worse Similar Similar Schools Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Worse Better Similar Similar Parks and Recreation Less than Significant Impact Worse Better Better Worse Better Similar Similar Libraries Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Worse Better Similar Similar Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Less than Significant Impact Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Similar Cumulative Wastewater Less than Significant Impact Better Better Better Better Similar Similar Similar Water Less than Significant Impact Better Better Better Worse Better Similar Similar Solid Waste Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Better Similar Similar Similar Electricity Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Better Better Similar Similar Natural Gas Less than Significant Impact Better Better Worse Better Better Similar Similar Source: Christopher A. Joseph, 2009. Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MITIGATION FOR TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Introduction Some of the proposed Project’s mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR would be located on the Project Site, while others would be located off-site (i.e., certain traffic mitigations). The potential environmental impacts from the on-site mitigation measures are analyzed in Section IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR. This Section analyzes the potentially significant impacts from the offsite mitigation measures discussed in Section IV.C, Traffic/Transportation, of this Draft EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D), “[i]f a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” This DEIR Section applies the same adopted City thresholds of significance that were applied to the proposed Project’s potential impacts in Sections IV.A to IV.O of this Draft EIR. For this analysis, the proposed Project’s off-site traffic improvements have been grouped into two categories: (1) Intersection Mitigation Measures; and (2) Street Segment Mitigation Measures. The intersection mitigation measures are described for each of the two impact criteria and analysis methodologies methodology described in Section IV.C, Transportation/Traffic, of this Draft EIR. As some of the various intersection mitigation measures also satisfy certain street segment mitigation requirements, only the Street Segment Mitigation Measures that would occur independently of proposed Intersection Mitigation Measures have been analyzed separately. Within these two categories, the intersection and roadway improvements can be described as follows. Level 1: This category includes minor roadway improvements. Minimal physical changes to the environment are required to implement Level 1 improvements. All of these improvements will occur within the existing right-of-way. Each Level 1 improvement is expected to require 5 to 20 construction days to complete. Minimal construction equipment would be necessary. Street striping would be done by a striping truck using standard street striping paint or thermoplastic. Existing street stripes that need to be removed would be removed with a small grinder going over the old stripes, and a sweeper to clean up the debris. Neither the addition or removal of existing stripes would disturb soils or occur outside of existing paved roadways. The installation of replacement street signals may require the use of an auger to dig street light foundations and a crane to lift new signal poles into place. If an auger is used, approximately three cubic yards of soil would be disturbed. Level 1 improvements will be carried out by construction workers transported to and from the improvement location in small vehicles. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Level 2: This category includes moderate roadway improvements. Moderate physical changes to the environment are required to implement Level 2 improvements, such as the demolition of existing curbs, sidewalks, medians, and/or parkways, and the construction of small stretches of new roadway, sidewalks and/or medians within or next to existing highway areas. Some of these improvements will occur within the existing right-of-way, while others will extend slightly beyond existing rights-of-way. Each Level 2 improvement is expected to require 15 to 35 construction days to complete. During any grading and excavation work for Level 2 improvements, the following types of equipment would be used: excavators, graders, rubbertired loaders, scrapers, water trucks, loaders, and similar equipment. When small stretches of new road is laid, the following types of equipment would be used: pavers, rollers, and other road building equipment. Level 2 improvements will be carried out by construction workers transported to and from the improvement location in small vehicles. Most of these minor new road widenings would occur on currently paved land, and some would occur adjacent to existing roadways on land that is currently unpaved but significantly disturbed due to its adjacency to existing roadways and development. Level 3: This category includes moderate roadway improvements similar to Level 2 improvements, but with additional work to demolish minor existing structures or to widen or replace existing bridges. During any grading and excavation work for Level 3 improvements, the following types of equipment would be used: excavators, graders, rubber-tired loaders, scrapers, water trucks, loaders, and similar equipment. When small stretches of new road is laid, the following types of equipment would be used: pavers, rollers, and other road building equipment. Level 3 Off-Site Roadway Improvements would also require the construction of new roadway, curbs, and sidewalks, using the same types of construction equipment discussed for Level 2 improvements. Demolition of existing structures would occur pursuant to applicable regulations and would include construction equipment similar to that to widen roadways and other handheld construction equipment such as concrete saws and jackhammers. The widening and/or replacement of bridges would also require cranes. Level 3 improvements that include bridge widening and/or replacement estimated to take between six to eight months to complete. Level 3 improvements that include the demolition of minor existing structures would proceed on a timeline commensurate with the local regulations for such demolitions. The roadway improvements would require 15 to 35 construction days to complete. Level 3 improvements would be carried out by construction workers transported to and from the improvement location in small vehicles. Level 4: This This category includes major roadway improvements designed to mitigate street segment impacts that are not mitigated fully under other measures, and primarily consists of widening large stretches of roadway and removing existing structures in the areas where the road City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 widenings would occur. Substantial physical changes to the environment are required to implement Level 4 improvements. Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Improvements would require constructing approximately 8.56 miles of new roadway beyond existing right-of-ways. Level 4 improvements are estimated to require between 1.5 to 2.2 years of construction to complete. For each two lane miles (i.e., widening on both sides of the road for one mile), construction is estimated to occur as follows: four to eight weeks for clearing and demolition, two weeks for grading, two weeks for gutter and curb construction requiring approximately 66 loads of concrete, four weeks for preparing roadway, two weeks for roadway paving, two weeks for sidewalk development, and two weeks for sealing. Level 4 improvements require demolishing at least 45 residences and 40 commercial structures, removing existing sidewalks and landscaping, relocating at least 36 existing utility poles, and removing of other existing roadway improvements. Construction of new roadway, curbs, and sidewalks, would be completed using the same types of construction equipment discussed for Level 2 improvements but using many more pieces of that construction equipment and for much longer periods of time. Level 4 improvements would be carried out by construction workers transported to and from the improvement location in small vehicles. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS A. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LEVEL 1 IMPROVEMENTS The Level 1 improvements will occur at the following intersections, which intersections are grouped by analysis conducted in Section IV.C, Traffic/Transportation, of this Draft EIR: Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria • Intersection #12 (Mitigation Measure C-1) Mohawk Street & Hageman Road – Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. • Intersection #20 (Mitigation Measure C-2) Coffee Road & Norris Road – Improve intersection operation by installing signal control. • Intersection #27 (Mitigation Measure C-3) Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared southbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Intersection #29 (Mitigation Measure C-24) Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by converting the westbound shared through/rightturn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #66 (Mitigation Measure C-22) Chester Avenue & 23rd Street – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Green-Time Priority Analysis (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only) Under Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria • Intersection #25 (Mitigation Measure C-28) Allen Road & Rosedale Highway – Improve intersection operation by installing overlapping right-turn signal phasing in all four directions. Street Segment Analysis • Street Segment #31 (Mitigation Measure C-52) Rosedale Highway west of Mohawk Street – Restripe existing roadway to add one lane in each direction from Fruitvale Avenue to Mohawk Street. 1. Potential Impacts Potential environmental impacts of Level 1 improvements were analyzed pursuant to the City’s adopted thresholds of significance under each impact area, which are the same thresholds of significance applied to the proposed Project’s potential on-site impacts in this Draft EIR. (1) Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise Level 1 improvements would result in minimal soil disturbances and would entail installing replacement traffic signals and restriping existing roadways. Where new street signals are installed, approximately three cubic yards of soil would be disturbed. Paints used for restriping may have volatile organic compounds and solvents may be used, but given their small quantities no significant release of hazardous materials is expected. The required improvements would also not result in significant noise impacts to surrounding land uses because the activities require minimal construction equipment and construction will be temporary in nature, lasting 5 to 20 days at each construction site. Additionally, Level 1 improvements City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 would not require the use of hazardous materials beyond standard painting materials and construction clean up materials. Because only minimal soil disturbance would occur, there is no potential for significant impacts to hydrology or water quality. Accordingly, under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance, impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, hydrology, water quality and noise would be less than significant. Additionally, to ensure that these impacts remain below significant levels, the mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR for cultural resources (Mitigation Measures J-1 to 2), geology and soils (Mitigation Measures E-1 to 2), hazards and hazardous materials (Mitigation Measures G-1 to 5), hydrology and water quality (Mitigation Measures F-1 to 2) and noise (Mitigation Measures L-1 to 3) would apply to these off-site improvements where applicable. (2) Biological Resources, Land Use, Population and Housing, Utilities and Service Systems, Public Services, Mineral Resources, Aesthetics Level 1 improvements would not result in any significant impacts to biological resources, land use, population and housing, utilities and service systems, public services (other than emergency vehicle access during construction addressed below), mineral resources, aesthetics, or utilities. Implementation of these improvements would only affect existing roadways and would not impact private property, do not involve any physical construction of roadways, do not result in an increase in population or employment, or a displace existing businesses or residences. Accordingly, under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for these impact areas, Level 1 improvements would not result in any significant impacts in these impact areas. Further, in order to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant, the mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR for biological resources (Mitigation Measures I-1 to 3), aesthetics (Mitigation Measures D-1 to 2), utilities (Mitigation Measure O-1), and mineral resources (Mitigation Measure H-1 to 2) would apply to Level 1 improvements where applicable. (3) Traffic and Emergency Access Level 1 improvements have the potential to result in minor traffic and emergency access impacts by creating delays and/or traffic congestion while striping is done or while signal systems are modified. Because Level 1 improvements are limited to signal modifications, installation of replacement signals, and lane restriping, and do not involve any physical construction of roadways, disruption to traffic flow would be minimal. Restriping roadways may require lane restrictions during various portions of the restriping activities. These impacts would be limited and temporary in nature. Additionally, one lane would be provided in each direction at all times. Further, as required by Mitigation Measure C-28, the Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans, satisfactory to the affected jurisdictions. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 In accordance with the proposed Project’s construction management plan’s requirements, any interruption to traffic flow, pedestrian movement, or parking would be minimized during the limited time frames associated with implementing Level 1 improvements. Therefore, potential off-site impacts related to traffic as a result of Level 1 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted threshold of significance for traffic. (4) Air Quality a. Construction Implementation of Level 1 Improvements would generate small amounts of air pollutant emissions from the operation of mechanical equipment and from construction worker travel to and from the job site. Thus, emissions generated by the implementation of the Level 1 improvements, individually and collectively, would not exceed the significance thresholds used in this Draft EIR with regard to regional construction emissions due to the very limited quantities of earth movement, the limited use of mechanical equipment, and the limited number of construction workers. Impacts attributable to Level 1 improvements with regard to localized air quality concentrations and toxic air contaminants would be less than significant due to the limited quantity of emissions at any one location because of the limited number of construction equipment and the physical separation of the intersections from one another. In addition to the emissions discussed above, implementation of the Level 1 improvements could emit odors associated with painting new stripes on the roadways. Any odors that could occur would occur for a limited duration (i.e., anticipated to be no more than a few hours or at most a day or two). Compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 4102 would preclude the creation of odors that may be deemed a nuisance. As such, odor impacts from the implementation of the Level 1 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for air quality. Level 1 improvements would also emit limited levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the operation of construction equipment and construction workers driving to and from the construction site. The Project’s overall reduction of GHG emissions through the implementation of project design features designed to reduce GHG emissions would reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level even with the addition of GHG emissions generated during the construction of Level 1 improvements. Therefore, implementation of the Level 1 improvements would result in a less than significant impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-7 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 b. Operation The Level 1 improvements will have no operational impacts apart from the impacts of the proposed Project that are analyzed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. 2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Level 1 improvements would not result in any significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Level 1 improvements would be less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, to ensure that impacts remain less than significant the relevant proposed Project mitigation measures would apply. B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LEVEL 2 IMPROVEMENTS The Level 2 improvements will occur at the following intersections, which are grouped by analysis conducted in Section IV.C, Traffic/Transportation, of this Draft EIR: Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria Phase I: • Intersection #46 (Mitigation Measure C-5) Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp – Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound through lane to provide four through lanes and one right-turn lane and widening the westbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Install split signal phasing in the east/west direction. • Intersection #59 (Mitigation Measure C-7) SR 99 NB Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane. • Intersection #91 (Mitigation Measure C-10) Oak Street & Truxtun Avenue – Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-8 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Intersection #95 (Mitigation Measure C-11) California Avenue & Mohawk Street – Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #96 (Mitigation Measure C-12) Mohawk Street & Truxtun Avenue – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Phase II: • Intersection #9 (Mitigation Measure C-13) Coffee Road & Hageman Road – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. • Intersection #38 (Mitigation Measure C-16) Allen Road & Westside Parkway EB Ramps – Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right-turn lane to provide two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. • Intersection #44 (Mitigation Measure C-17) Calloway Drive/Old River Road & Stockdale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. • Intersection #46 (Mitigation Measure C-18) Coffee Road & Brimhall Road/Westside Parkway WB Off-Ramp – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the northbound direction. • Intersection #49 (Mitigation Measure C-19) Coffee Road/Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared northbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. • Intersection #58 (Mitigation Measure C-20) SR 99 SB Ramps & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. • Intersection #63 (Mitigation Measure C-21) Chester Avenue & 24th Street – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared westbound left-turn/through lane into one left City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-9 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 turn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #66 (Mitigation Measure C-22) Chester Avenue & 23rd Street – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound left-turn/through lane into one leftturn lane and one through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Phase III: • Intersection #12 (Mitigation Measure C-23) Mohawk Street & Hageman Road – Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes and three through lanes in the westbound direction. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-25) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. • Intersection #98 (Mitigation Measure C-27) Gosford Street & Camino Media – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Green-Time Priority Analysis (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only) Under Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria Phase I: • Intersection #28 (Mitigation Measure C-29) Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-30) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-10 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Intersection #31 (Mitigation Measure C-31) Patton Way & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one shared through/rightturn lane in both directions. • Intersection #32 (Mitigation Measure C-32) Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-33) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. • Intersection #58 (Mitigation Measure C-34) SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide four through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the westbound direction. • Intersection #59 (Mitigation Measure C-35) SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Buck Owens Boulevard & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide five through lanes and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. Phase II: • Intersection #27 (Mitigation Measure C-36) Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. • Intersection #29 (Mitigation Measure C-37) Main Plaza Drive/El Toro Viejo Road & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the westbound approach to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-38) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-11 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one rightturn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #32 (Mitigation Measure C-39) Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. • Intersection #57 (Mitigation Measure C-41) Landco Drive & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-40) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two rightturn lanes. • Intersection #58 (Mitigation Measure C-42) SR-99 Southbound Ramps & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the eastbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into a separate through lane and right turn lane. This will provide three through lanes and two right-turn lanes in the eastbound direction. 1. Potential Impacts Potential environmental impacts of Level 2 improvements were analyzed pursuant to the City’s adopted thresholds of significance under each impact area, which are the same thresholds of significance applied to the proposed Project’s potential on-site impacts in this Draft EIR. (1) Land Use, Biological Resources Since the proposed intersection improvements would be completed within or immediately adjacent to existing roadways and do not involve a change in existing land use patterns, there is no potential for land use impacts under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Additionally, because the proposed improvements would be completed on or adjacent to existing roads and within heavily disturbed areas, City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-12 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 they do not occur within habitat for special status species. Several ornamental trees would be removed as part of the improvements, however, these trees are not protected under federal, state, or local regulations. The proposed improvements, therefore, would not result in impacts to biological resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Additionally, in order to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant, the mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR for biological resources (Mitigation Measures I-1 to 2) would apply to Level 2 improvements where applicable. (2) Geology, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources Level 2 improvements involve the minor expansion of existing roadways and do not involve the construction of any structures. This roadwork would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic or geologic hazards; involve substantial amounts of cut and fill; or construct structures that would be susceptible to damage from seismic events. Therefore, Level 2 improvements would not have a significant geologic impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Further, Level 2 improvements do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. Therefore, the proposed improvements would not result in hazardous or hazardous materials impacts under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Lastly, because Level 2 improvements only expand existing roadways, they would not cause the loss of mineral resources and would not have a significant impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for the same. Additionally, the proposed Project’s mitigation measures would apply as applicable to ensure that any impact remained below each City-adopted significance threshold. (3) Public Services, Population and Housing, Utilities and Service Systems Level 2 improvements would not cause an increase in demand in police or fire protection, nor result in increased demand on public schools. The proposed improvements would not result in access restrictions or increased demand on public parks or impacts public recreation because they will occur within existing roadway right-of-ways. Level 2 improvements would not generate additional water demand, wastewater, or result in an increase in solid waste generation. Level 2 improvements would not result in the construction or demolition of dwelling units or result in an extension of public infrastructure. Therefore, Level 2 improvements would not cause significant impacts to public services, utilizes, or population and housing impact under the City’s adopted significance thresholds. (4) Traffic and Emergency Access Construction of Level 2 improvements may require lane restrictions during various portions of the construction activities. However, these impacts would be short-lived, and at least one lane would be provided in each direction at all times. Further, as required by Mitigation Measure C-57, the Project City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-13 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the affected jurisdictions for all improvements. In accordance with the requirements of the construction management plan, any interruption to traffic flow, pedestrian movement, or parking would be minimized during construction. Therefore, potential traffic impacts of Level 2 improvements would be less than significant. The construction traffic management plan would outline measures to ensure emergency vehicle access during construction, including using flagmen during partial street closures. Thus, potential impacts from Level 2 improvements related to emergency access would be less than significant under the City’s thresholds of significance for traffic. With respect to on-street parking, Level 2 improvements would require the removal of existing on-street parking spaces to accommodate the proposed roadway improvements at three intersections (Chester Avenue & 24th Street [five on-street parking on the south side of 24th street east of Chester Avenue]; Verdugo Lane & Rosedale Highway [three on on-street parking spaces on the east side of Verdugo Lane south of Rosedale Highway]; and Chester Avenue & 23rd Street [two on-street parking spaces from the north side of 23rd Street west of Chester Avenue and two on-street parking spaces from the south side of 23rd Street west of Chester Avenue].) Because the loss of on-street parking is de minimis given the amount of existing on-street parking in the vicinity of these three intersections, no significant parking shortfall would occur. Thus, impacts to on-street parking resulting from implementation of the Level 2 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. (5) Noise a. Construction Construction of Level 2 improvements would result in the generation of some noise. Construction activities would generate noise levels similar to the noise levels generated during on-site excavation and grading because similar types of construction equipment are expected to be used. Table IV.K-8 sets forth these typical outdoor construction noise levels. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately six dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would be reduced to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor and reduced by another six dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Given existing noise profiles at each intersection where construction will occur, the rate at which noise diminishes over distance, and the temporary nature of the construction, construction noise impacts would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-14 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Additionally, potential noise impacts would be reduced by compliance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code’s restrictions on construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential uses to between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekends. Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3, which require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction, also apply to Level 2 improvements and would ensure that the noise levels associated with construction of Level 2 improvements would remain less than significant. b. Operation As discussed in Section IV.L, Noise, of this Draft EIR, areas in the proposed Project’s vicinity were analyzed for increases in traffic noise. This analysis determined that noise impacts from mobile sources (i.e., cars and trucks) would be less than significant. The noise impact of the intersection improvements would also be less than significant. (6) Aesthetics Level 2 improvements would replace or expand existing roadway materials with those that are similar in form, color, and texture as those already in place. Level 2 improvements would also generally be completed at ground level, so the improvements would not restrict views of the surrounding area. Thus, improvements would not introduce visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the intersections or block any existing scenic vistas. Level 2 improvements would not introduce new sources of light or glare because they would merely expand existing roadways. Because Level 2 improvements would not introduce incompatible visual elements, new sources of light and glare, or disrupt or significantly block a scenic vista from a designated scenic highway, they would not have a significant aesthetic impact under the City’s adopted significance thresholds. (7) Hydrology and Water Quality a. Hydrology The areas near the Level 2 improvements are currently developed with impervious (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings) and pervious (e.g., landscaped medians and parkways) surfaces. Level 2 improvements would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces, as roadway widening would primarily be accommodated by converting one impervious land use for another impervious land use. While some landscaping would be replaced with impervious surfaces, the increase in impervious surface would be negligible in comparison the total amount of impervious surface area in the vicinity of these intersections. Thus, the improvements would not significantly increase the amount of runoff or City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-15 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 increase peak flow rates in the vicinity of the intersection, and are not anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage system or result in downstream flooding. Drainage patterns would not be altered by Level 2 improvements. Sheet flow resulting from stormwater flows would continue to flow across roadway surface into the gutter and into stormwater catchments located along the roadway. As stormwater entering the catchments would continue to flow through the City stormwater drainage system, there would be no impact to drainage patterns. Under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance, Level 2 improvements would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology. b. Water Quality Ground-disturbing activities for the Level 2 improvements would be minor (e.g., curb replacement, minor grading) and temporary, and the amount of soil exposed during construction would be minimal. The potential for sediment from exposed soils to enter stormwater flows would be further reduced through compliance with the proposed Project Design Features including implementation of best management practices and compliance with a Standard Urban Water Resources Mitigation Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as detailed in Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR. Since construction would be short-lived, would involve negligible amounts of exposed soil, and would use best management practices to reduce the potential for pollutants to enter stormwater flows, construction of Level 2 improvements would result in no significant surface water quality impacts under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for water quality. (8) Air Quality a. Construction Implementation of Level 2 Roadway Improvements would result in the generation of additional emissions during the construction of the improvements. Each type of emission is discussed below. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-16 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Criteria pollutant emissions were modeled for each construction phase to identify maximum daily emissions, and combined to quantify the total emissions from the individual roadway improvement.1 Whereas it is anticipated that only one or two Level 2 roadway improvements would likely be under construction at the same time, in order to provide a very conservative analysis it is assumed that all Level 2 roadway improvements would be under construction in the same year. Based on this very conservative assumption, criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project, except for Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions in the first year of Phase I construction, would not exceed the established significance thresholds. NOx impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the project design features that call for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Therefore, under the scenario in which all Level 2 improvements would occur in the same year, emissions of all criteria pollutants would result in a less than significant impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. (See Section IV.K, Air Quality Analysis, of this Draft EIR) Table VII-1 Estimated Maximum Total Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Individual Level 2 Roadway Improvements (tons/improvement) Emissions ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Phase I Improvements Without Project Design Features 0.07 0.32 0.55 Negligible 0.06 0.03 With Project Design Features a 0.07 0.32 0.13 Negligible 0.04 0.01 Phase II Improvements Without Project Design Features 0.03 0.20 0.17 Negligible 0.04 0.01 With Project Design Features a 0.03 0.20 0.04 Negligible 0.04 0.01 Phase III Improvements Without Project Design Features 0.03 0.20 0.15 Negligible 0.04 0.01 With Project Design Features a 0.03 0.20 0.04 Negligible 0.04 0.01 District Threshold 10 n/a 10 n/a 15 15 a Project design features include the use of the following emission reduction products: (1) engine control system – combfilter, and (2) extengine. Source: Matrix Environmental, December 2009. 1 Criteria pollutant emissions during roadway construction were modeled using the “Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 6.3.2,” prepared by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. This is the only such model prepared by a California air district, and is recognized by other California air districts as an acceptable model for conducting such analyses. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-17 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Impacts on localized air quality concentrations and toxic air contaminants would also be less than significant due to the anticipated quantity of construction equipment operating at each intersection and the physical separation of the improvements from one another. Potential construction air quality impacts would be reduced via the implementation of the proposed Project’s mitigation measures designed to mitigate air quality impacts, as applicable. Level 2 improvements could emit odors associated with painting new stripes on the roadways and from laying new/replacement asphalt. Any odors that occur would be short-lived (i.e., from a few days to a couple of weeks). Compliance with District Rule 4102 would preclude the creation of odors that may be deemed a nuisance. As such, odors from the Level 2 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds. GHG emissions would also be emitted during construction of the Level 2 improvements. Because of the short construction period and limited use of construction equipment, impacts on GHG emissions would be minimized. Additionally, the proposed Project’s project design feature identified to address the proposed Project’s GHG emissions (See Section III, Project Description and Environmental Setting, of this Draft EIR) would apply to Level 2 improvements. Application of these measures would reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. b. Operation Post-construction air quality impacts would only occur in those instances in which the roadway is brought substantially closer to a sensitive receptor. Given the very small reductions in distances to the roadway, a less than significant impact would result with regard to localized air quality conditions during Project operations. All other post-construction impacts (e.g., impacts resulting from higher traffic volumes) are related to the impacts of the Project itself and as such, are analyzed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, which concludes that operational air quality impacts are less than significant. (9) Cultural Resources The construction of Level 2 improvements would require ground-disturbing activities on land that has previously been disturbed or is immediately adjacent to land disturbed by past construction and existing development. A records search and field survey of property with 0.5 miles of the proposed Project identified six cultural resources sites of which only one is considered eligible (but is not listed on) the National Register of Historic Places. No archeological or paleontological sites were identified. No Level 2 improvements are adjacent to any of these six identified cultural resources sites. Construction could potentially result in impacts to unknown historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Should City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-18 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 archaeological or paleontological resources be uncovered during construction, those resources would be treated in accordance with federal, state and local guidelines, as appropriate, as required by Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 outlined in Section IV.J, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, construction would result in a less-than-significant impact to archaeological and paleontological resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. 2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Level 2 improvements would not result in any significant impacts with the exception of air quality, which impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through Mitigation Measure K-16 the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts from Level 2 improvements on regional air quality would be reduced to less than significant levels by the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Furthermore, the relevant proposed Project mitigation measures would apply to Level 2 improvements to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. C. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LEVEL 3 IMPROVEMENTS The Level 3 improvements will occur at the following intersections, which are grouped by analysis conducted in Section IV.C, Traffic/Transportation: Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria Phase I: • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-4) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and northbound left-turn lane to provide three leftturn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound and northbound directions. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-6) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-19 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Intersection #81 (Mitigation Measure C-8) Real Road & Stockdale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by separating the shared eastbound through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Install an overlapping right-turn arrow. • Intersection #83 (Mitigation Measure C-9) Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane – Increase intersection capacity by adding a southbound right-turn lane to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes in the southbound direction. Phase II: • Intersection #28 (Mitigation Measure C-14) Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by converting the northbound and southbound shared through/right-turn lanes into separate through lanes and right-turn lanes to provide one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction and two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction. • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-15) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Phase III: • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-25) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – Increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound left-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. Green-Time Priority Analysis (Rosedale Corridor Intersections Only) Under Five-Second Delay Impact Criteria Phase I: • Intersection #28 (Mitigation Measure C-29) Calloway Drive & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by widening the northbound approach to convert the shared through/right-turn lane into one through lane and one right-turn lane. This will provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-20 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-30) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a northbound and eastbound through lane and a westbound left-turn lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the northbound and eastbound directions and three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #32 (Mitigation Measure C-32) Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-33) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Phase II: • Intersection #30 (Mitigation Measure C-38) Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound and a southbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the southbound direction and three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one rightturn lane in the westbound direction. • Intersection #32 (Mitigation Measure C-39) Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding an eastbound through lane to provide one left-turn lane, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. • Intersection #56 (Mitigation Measure C-40) Mohawk Street & Rosedale Highway – This improvement proposes to increase intersection capacity by adding a westbound through lane to provide three left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-turn lane, and adding a northbound right-turn lane to provide three left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two rightturn lanes. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-21 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 1. Potential Impacts Potential environmental impacts of Level 3 improvements were analyzed pursuant to the City’s adopted thresholds of significance under each impact area, which are the same thresholds of significance applied to the proposed Project’s potential on-site impacts in this Draft EIR. (1) Land Use Level 3 improvements would not cause a significant land use impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Level 3 improvements could involve the demolition of two minor structures at two existing gas stations located at the intersections of Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive and Stockdale Highway and S. Real Road and a portion of an existing warehouse located at Rosedale Highway and Mohawk Avenue. These demolitions, should they occur, would not change the character of the existing community or physically divide an existing community. The bridge widenings would also not change existing land use patterns because they only involve the minor widenings of existing roadways. Accordingly, land use impacts would be less than significant under the City’s adopted threshold of significance. (2) Biological Resources As with Level 2 improvements, Level 3 improvements would be completed on or adjacent to existing roads and within heavily disturbed areas. Two bridges to be improved and/or replaced (intersections of Coffee Road & Rosedale Highway and Fruitvale Avenue & Rosedale Highway) cross Friant-Kern Canal which delivers water to various federal districts primarily for irrigation and agricultural purposes and does not provide habitat for special status species. The third bridge (Oak Street/Wible Road & Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane) crosses Interstate 99, which contains no habitat for special status species. The proposed improvements, therefore, would not result in impacts to biological resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Additionally, in order to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant, the mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR for biological resources (Mitigation Measures I-1 to 3) would apply where applicable. (3) Geology Level 3 improvements involve the demolition of minor structures and widening and/or replacement of three existing bridges. Bridge widening and/or rebuilding would be conducted pursuant to all applicable improvements and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements outlined in the most current edition of the California Building Code, Department of the State Architect requirements, and federal building code requirements. Therefore, Level 3 improvements would not have a significant City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-22 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 geologic impact under the City’s adopted threshold of significance. Additionally, the proposed Project’s mitigation measures would apply as applicable to ensure that any impact remained below each Cityadopted significance threshold. (4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Mineral Resources Level 3 improvements do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. The improvements proposed at the intersections of South Real Road and Stockdale Highway and Calloway Drive and Rosedale Highway would include the demolition of a gas station, which would require the removal of existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) at this facility. Although the removal of USTs has the potential to result in the release of hazardous materials, implementation of this improvement would comply with all regulations for removing USTs, any associated contaminated soil as applicable, and regulated closure of the site. Therefore, the proposed improvements would not result in hazardous or hazardous materials impacts under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Since Level 3 improvements only expand existing roadways and bridges, they would not cause the loss of mineral resources and would not have a significant impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for the same. Application of the proposed Project’s mitigation measures relative to hazards would ensure that impacts remained less than significant. (See Mitigation Measures G-1 to 5.) (5) Public Services, Population and Housing, Utilities and Service Systems Level 3 improvements would not have a significant impact on public services, population or utilities for the same reasons that Level 2 roadway improvements would not cause such impacts – both widen existing roadways by adding one or two lanes. Therefore, Level 3 improvements would not cause significant impacts to public services, utilizes, or population and housing impact under the City’s adopted significance thresholds. (6) Traffic and Emergency Access Level 3 Improvements may require lane restrictions during construction. These restrictions would be temporary, would provide at least one lane in each direction at all times, and would be done pursuant to a construction traffic management plan, as required by Mitigation Measure C-57. Thus, potential impacts from Level 3 improvements related to emergency access would be less than significant under the City’s thresholds of significance for traffic. Impacts to on-street parking would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance because no on-street parking would be removed. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-23 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (7) Noise a. Construction Construction of Level 3 improvements would generate noise levels similar to noise levels created by Level 2 improvements. For the reasons discussed above in Section I.B.1.5, given existing noise profiles at each intersection where demolition and road/bridge construction will occur, the rate at which noise diminishes over distance, and the temporary nature of the construction, construction noise impacts would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Additionally, potential noise impacts would be reduced by compliance with Bakersfield Municipal Code’s restrictions on construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential uses and the implementation of Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3. Both would ensure that the noise levels associated with construction of Level 3 improvements would remain less than significant. b. Operation As discussed in Section IV.L, Noise, of this Draft EIR, areas in the proposed Project’s vicinity were analyzed for increases in traffic noise. This analysis determined that noise impacts from mobile sources (i.e., cars and trucks) would be less than significant. The noise impact of the intersection improvements would also be less than significant. (8) Aesthetics Level 3 improvements would replace or expand existing bridges with those that are similar in form, color, and texture as those already in place. Thus, improvements would not introduce visual elements that would be incompatible with the existing character of the area surrounding the intersections or block any existing scenic vistas. Level 3 improvements would not introduce new sources of light or glare because they would merely expand existing roadways. Level 3 improvements’ demolition of existing structures would not have an aesthetic impact because they would remove existing structures. Because Level 3 Improvements would not introduce incompatible visual elements, new sources of light and glare, or disrupt or significantly block a scenic vista from a designated scenic highway, they would not have a significant aesthetic impact under the City’s adopted significance thresholds. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-24 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (9) Hydrology and Water Quality a. Hydrology Level 3 improvements would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces, as roadway widening would primarily be accommodated by converting one impervious land use for another impervious land use. Additionally, bridge widening would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface crossing the Friant-Kern Canal. Thus, Level 3 improvements would not significantly increase the amount of runoff or increase peak flow rates in the vicinity of the intersection, and are not anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage system or result in downstream flooding. Drainage patterns would also not be altered by Level 3 improvements. Sheet flow resulting from stormwater flows would continue to flow across roadway surface into the gutter and into stormwater catchments located along the roadway. As stormwater entering the catchments would continue to flow through the City stormwater drainage system, there would be no impact to drainage patterns. In sum, under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance Level 3 Improvements would result in lessthan-significant impacts to hydrology. b. Water Quality Ground-disturbing activities for the Level 3 improvements would be minor and temporary, and the amount of soil exposed during construction would be minimal. The widening and/or replacement of existing bridges across the Friant-Kern Canal would cause minimal disruption to the canal and would not reduce water quality. With respect to the demolition and grading activities, the potential for sediment from exposed soils to enter stormwater flows would be further reduced through compliance with the proposed Project Design Features including implementation of best management practices and compliance with a Standard Urban Water Resources Mitigation Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as detailed in Section III, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Since construction would be temporary, would involve negligible amounts of exposed soil, and would use best management practices to reduce the potential for pollutants to enter stormwater flows, construction of Level 3 improvements would result in no significant surface water quality impacts under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for water quality. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-25 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (10) Air Quality a. Construction Level 3 Roadway Improvements would result in the generation of additional emissions during the construction of the improvements. Each type of emission is discussed below. Criteria pollutant emissions were modeled for each construction phase to identify maximum daily emissions, and combined to quantify the total emissions from the individual roadway improvement using the same conservative assumptions applied to Level 2 improvements discussed above. Whereas it is anticipated that only one or two Level 3 roadway improvements would likely be under construction at the same time, in order to provide a very conservative analysis it is assumed that all Level 3 roadway improvements would be under construction in the same year. Based on this very conservative assumption, criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project, except for NOx emissions in the first year of Phase I construction, would not exceed the established significance thresholds. NOx impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Therefore, under the scenario in which all Level 3 improvements would be occur in the same year, emissions of all criteria pollutants would result in a less than significant impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Table VII-2 Estimated Maximum Total Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Individual Level 3 Roadway Improvement (tons/improvement) Emissions ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Phase I Improvements (Year 1) Without Project Design Features 0.38 1.61 3.04 Negligible 0.53 0.22 With Project Design Features a 0.38 1.61 0.62 Negligible 0.40 0.10 Phase II Improvements (2024) Without Project Design Features 0.17 1.08 0.94 Negligible 0.42 0.12 With With Project Design Features a 0.17 1.08 0.19 Negligible 0.38 0.08 Phase III Improvements (2034) Without Project Design Features 0.16 1.07 0.86 Negligible 0.41 0.11 With Project Design Features a 0.16 1.07 0.18 Negligible 0.38 0.08 District Threshold 10 n/a 10 n/a 15 15 a Project design features include the use of the following emission reduction products: (1) engine control system – combfilter, and (2) extengine. Source: Matrix Environmental, December 2009. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-26 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Impacts on localized air quality concentrations and toxic air contaminants would also be less than significant due to the anticipated quantity of construction equipment operating at each intersection and the physical separation of the improvements from one another. Additionally, potential construction air quality impacts would be reduced via the implementation of the proposed Project’s mitigation measures designed to mitigate air quality impacts, as applicable. Level 2 improvements could emit odors associated with painting new stripes on the roadways and from laying new/replacement asphalt. Any odors that occur would be short-lived (i.e., from a few days to a couple of weeks). District Rule 4102 also precludes the creation of odors that may be deemed a nuisance. As such, odors from the Level 3 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds. The improvements proposed at Intersection 81 (South Real Road and Stockdale Highway) include demolition of an existing structure. Demolition would comply with all District regulations including District Rule 4102, as noted above for nuisances, and Rule 4002 with respect to the potential release of toxic materials, specifically asbestos. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with demolition would be less than significant. GHG emissions would be emitted during construction of the Level 3 improvements. Because of the limited construction period and limited use of construction equipment, impacts on GHG emissions would be minimized. Additionally, the proposed Project’s project design feature identified to address the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would apply to Level 3 improvements and would further reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. b. Operation Because no roadways will be brought substantially closer to sensitive receptors, a less than significant impact would result with regard to localized air quality conditions during Project operations. All other post-construction impacts (e.g., impacts resulting from higher traffic volumes) are related to the impacts of the Project itself and as such, are analyzed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, which concludes that operational air quality impacts are less than significant. (11) Cultural Resources The construction of Level 3 Improvements would require ground-disturbing activities on land that has previously been disturbed. A records search and field survey of property with 0.5 miles of the proposed Project identified six cultural resources sites (Section IV.J at 6), of which only one is considered eligible (but is not listed on) the National Register of Historic Places. The one eligible site is the Friant-Kern City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-27 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Canal because it is a component of the Central Valley Project. Although the canal has been recorded elsewhere, it has not been formally documented within Kern County. No archeological or paleontological sites were identified. The widening and/or replacement of two bridges that cross the Friant-Kern Canal would not have a significant impact on this resource. Neither improvement would change the visual character or integrity of the canal at either intersection as both intersections are highly developed with roadways and other infrastructure. Construction could also potentially result in impacts to unknown historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Should archaeological or paleontological resources be uncovered during construction, those resources would be treated in accordance with federal, state and local guidelines, as appropriate, as required by Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 outlined in Section IV.J, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, construction would result in a less than significant impact to archaeological and paleontological resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. 2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Level 3 improvements would not result in any significant impacts with the exception of air quality, which impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts from Level 3 improvements on regional air quality would be reduced to a less than significant level by the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Furthermore, the relevant proposed Project mitigation measures would apply to Level 3 improvements to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF LEVEL 4 IMPROVEMENTS (STREET SEGMENT MEASURES) Level 4 improvements include major roadway improvements designed to mitigate street segment impacts that are not mitigated fully under other measures. Similar to the intersection analysis performed using the City of Bakersfield Adopted Traffic Criteria, an analysis of the proposed Project’s impacts on street segments was completed. That analysis identified the following improvements to mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on the studied street segments, each of which is classified as a Level 4 improvement: City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-28 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Phase I: • Street Segment # 29 (Mitigation Measure C-43) Coffee Road south of Rosedale Highway – Add one lane in each direction from Rosedale Highway to the BNSF railroad overpass. • Street Segment #30 (Mitigation Measure C-44) Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road – Add one lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way. • Street Segment #44 (Mitigation Measure C-45) Coffee Road north of Brimhall Road – Add one lane in each direction from the BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road. • Street Segment #45 (Mitigation Measure C-46) Coffee Road south of Brimhall Road – Add one lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to the Westside Parkway. • Street Segment #47 (Mitigation Measure C-47) Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue – Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue. • Street Segment #61 (Mitigation Measure C-48) Coffee Road north of Stockdale Highway – Add one lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway. • Street Segment #65 (Mitigation Measure C-49) California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway – Add one lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway. Phase II: • Street Segment #14 (Mitigation Measure C-50) Coffee Road north of Hageman Road – Add one lane in each direction from Olive Road to Hageman Road. • Street Segment #28 (Mitigation Measure C-51) Coffee Road north of Rosedale Highway – Add one lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway. • Street Segment #77 (Mitigation Measure C-53) Gosford Avenue south of Ming Avenue – Add one lane in each direction Ming Avenue to Laurel Glen Boulevard. Phase III: • Street Segment #62 (Mitigation Measure C-54) Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway -Add one lane in each direction. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-29 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 1. Summary of Street Segment Improvements Table VII-3, Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Right-of-Way Impacts, and Table VII-4, Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Utility Impacts, summarize the existing development that would be necessary to relocate or demolish as a result of the Level 4 improvements. Table VII-3 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Right-of Way Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts Phase I (Year 2015) (29) Coffee Road s/o Rosedale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Rosedale Hwy to BNSF railroad overpass 1. ROW acquisition/encroachment at the Friant-Kern Canal on east of the street. 2. ROW acquisition from former PG&E plant on the west side of Coffee Rd. The frontage road would need to be reconfigured depending on slope widening. 3. ROW acquisition from private property south of Jet Way Bridge. (30) Rosedale Highway e/o Coffee Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way 1. ROW acquisition/encroachment at the Friant-Kern Canal bridge on north and south side of the street 2. ROW acquisition at Carrol’s tire shop on the north side of Rosedale Hwy. would result in the loss of six parking spaces. 3. ROW acquisition of Coco’s Restaurant, Whitewater Carwash, Arco AM/PM, and Famous Dave’s Restaurant. 4. ROW acquisition at tire shop on northwest corner of Henry Ln and Rosedale Hwy, resulting in a loss of a majority of their parking spaces. 5. ROW acquisition/encroachment at the Calloway Canal on south and north side of Rosedale Hwy. 6. ROW acquisition at the Outside Home Store at the northeast corner of Henry Ln and Rosedale Hwy, resulting in the loss of most of their parking and outside displays. 7. ROW acquisition of the front of nursery. 8. ROW acquisition of dirt lot in front of Drilling company on south side of Rosedale Hwy. 9. ROW acquisition of landscaping at Derrel’s Mini Storage on north side of Rosedale Hwy. 10. ROW acquisition of Automobile Body Shop parking on south side of the Rosedale Hwy. 11. ROW acquisition of frontage area of former appliance shop, and current landscape/lighting dealer (on south side of Rosedale Highway) would result in reduced setbacks. 12. ROW acquisition along the frontage of the Fruitvale School District building at southwest corner of Patton Wy and Rosedale Hwy, would result in loss of landscaping. The signal would need to be reconfigured at this location. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-30 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VII-3 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Right-of Way Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts (44) Coffee Road n/o Brimhall Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road 1. ROW acquisition of frontage along Pan Pacific Petroleum on east side of Coffee Rd. The intersection would need to be widened and the signal reconfigured at the frontage road per the slope widening. 2. Project Applicant would need to dedicate additional property along their frontage on the west side of Coffee Rd 3. ROW acquisition of undeveloped land on the east side of Coffee Rd. 4. ROW acquisition at the frontage to Derrel’s Mini Storage on east side of Coffee Rd. Existing building and wall/gate entrance would need to be reconfigured to work in the widened condition. 5. PG&E electric towers may conflict. The towers are extremely large and generally are not able to relocate. 6. ROW acquisition along frontage of the Pedal Car Café on the east side of Coffee Rd, would remove landscaping, patio, and two parking spaces. 7. ROW acquisition of frontage at the Fastrip gas station on the northeast corner of Coffee Rd and Brimhall Rd. Would remove landscaping and six parking spaces at Fastrip gas station. (45) Coffee Road s/o Brimhall Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway 1. ROW acquisition at Chevron gas station. Would remove landscaping on southwest corner of Coffee Rd and Brimhall Rd. (47) Mohawk Street s/o Truxtun Avenue Add 1 Lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue 1. ROW acquisition of frontage at Morgan-Stanley office building. Would remove existing landscaping at southwest corner of Mohawk St and Truxtun Ave. 2. ROW acquisition of frontage and patio at Woody’s Restaurant, would remove existing landscaping. 3. ROW acquisition of frontage and nine parking spaces at office building. Would remove existing landscape on east side of Mohawk Street 4. ROW acquisition/encroachment of the Gates Canal on the west side of Mohawk St. 5. ROW acquisition at Creekside Apartments on east side of Mohawk St. Would remove existing landscaping. 6. ROW acquisition at the Greenhaven Apartments. Would remove existing landscaping on the west side of Mohawk St. 7. ROW acquisition at the Continental Labor and Staffing Recourses office building. Would remove existing landscaping on northwest corner of Mohawk Street and Tower Way. 8. ROW acquisition of frontage at the Millennium Advantage Insurance. Would remove existing landscaping and office building on south side of Mohawk Street at Tower Way. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-31 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VII-3 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Right-of Way Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts 9. ROW acquisition at Stockdale Tower office building. Would remove existing landscaping on northeast corner of Mohawk Street and Tower Way. 10. ROW acquisition of frontage at Quad Knopf office building. Would remove existing landscaping on northwest corner of Mohawk Street and California Ave. 11. ROW acquisition of frontage at Blue Sky Sales office building. Would remove existing landscaping on southwest corner of Mohawk Street and California Ave. (61) Coffee Road n/o Stockdale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway 1. ROW acquisition of frontage and possible parking. Would remove existing landscaping at the shopping center at southeast corner of Coffee Rd and Truxtun Ave. Ave. 2. ROW acquisition/encroachment of Kern River Canal and Arvin Edison Canal on east and west side of Coffee Rd. 3. ROW acquisition of frontage. Would remove existing landscaping on the northeast corner of Coffee Rd and Westfield Rd. and could remove parking. 4. ROW acquisition of undeveloped land on the east side of Coffee Road between Westfield Rd and Stockdale Hwy. 5. ROW acquisition of frontage at the shopping center at the northwest corner of Coffee Rd and Stockdale Hwy. Would remove existing landscaping and could remove parking. (65) California Avenue n/o Stockdale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Mohawk Street to Stockdale Highway 1. ROW acquisition of frontage at office building complex. Would remove existing landscaping at southwest corner of California Ave and Mohawk St 2. ROW acquisition of frontage at Pacific Health Education Center office building complex. Would remove existing landscaping at southwest corner of California Ave and Office Center Ct. 3. ROW acquisition at the Bistro Restaurant on the east side of California Ave. Would remove existing landscaping. 4. ROW acquisition of frontage and approximately three parking spaces at the Triangle Office Building. Would remove existing landscaping on the east. Phase II (Year 2035) (14) Coffee Road n/o Hageman Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Olive Drive to Hageman Road 1. Encroachment into PG&E right-of-way on west side of Coffee Road. 2. ROW acquisition of approximately 25 homes on the east side of Coffee Road 3. ROW acquisition at Centennial Plaza Office Complex. Would remove existing landscaping on the west side of Coffee Road 4. ROW acquisition at McDonalds on west side of Coffee Road, north of Hageman Rd. Would remove existing landscaping and sidewalk. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-32 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VII-3 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Right-of Way Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts 5. ROW acquisition of frontage at Shell Gas Station on east side of Coffee Road, north of Hageman Rd. Would remove existing landscaping. (28) Coffee Road n/o Rosedale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway 1. ROW acquisition/encroachment at the Friant-Kern Canal on east of the street. 2. ROW acquisition at Extreme Wireless Store. Would remove existing landscaping on the southwest corner of Coffee Road and Granite Falls Drive. 3. ROW acquisition of frontage at the shopping center at the northwest corner of Coffee Rd and Rosedale Hwy. Would remove existing landscaping and could remove parking. (77) Gosford Road s/o Ming Avenue Add 1 Lane in each direction from Ming Avenue Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard 1. ROW acquisition at the University Park Gated Community. Would remove existing landscaping on the southwest corner of Gosford Rd and Ming Avenue. Phase III (Year 2035) (62) Coffee Road s/o Stockdale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Kroll Way to Stockdale Highway 1. ROW acquisition of 11 single family homes on the east side of Gosford Rd 2. City owned landscaping existing to the west side of Gosford Rd Source: Ruettgers & Schuler, December 2009. Table VII-4 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Utility Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Utility Impacts Phase I (Year 2015) (29) Coffee Road s/o Rosedale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Rosedale Hwy to BNSF railroad overpass 1. Relocate overhead electric line with 6 power poles on west side of Coffee Road. 2. Relocate overhead electric line with 2 power poles on the east side of Coffee Road. (30) Rosedale Highway e/o Coffee Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Coffee Road to Patton Way 1. Relocate overhead electric line with 10 power poles on the north side of Rosedale Hwy. (44) Coffee Road n/o Brimhall Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from BNSF railroad overpass to Brimhall Road 1. Relocate overhead electric line 1 power pole on east side of Coffee Road. 2. Relocate overhead electric line with 2 PG&E towers on west side of Coffee Road. 3. Relocate overhead electric line to power pole on west side of Coffee Road. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-33 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Table VII-4 Level 4 Off-Site Roadway Utility Impacts Street No. & Segment Proposed Mitigation Utility Impacts (45) Coffee Road s/o Brimhall Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Brimhall Road to Westside Parkway 1. Relocate overhead electric line with 10 power poles on the north side of Rosedale Hwy (61) Coffee Road n/o Stockdale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway 1. Relocate overhead electric line with 3 power poles on the east side of Coffee Rd 2. Relocate 2 electrical boxes and 2 vaults at shopping center on northwest corner of Coffee Rd and Stockdale Hwy Phase II (Year 2035) (14) Coffee Road n/o Hageman Road Add 1 Lane in each direction from Olive Drive to Hageman Road 1. Relocate overhead electric line with four PG&E towers on west side of Coffee Road. (28) Coffee Road n/o Rosedale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Granite Falls Drive to Rosedale Highway 1. Relocate 2 electrical boxes and 2 vaults at shopping center on northwest corner of Coffee Rd and Rosedale Hwy. (77) Gosford Road s/o Ming Avenue Add 1 Lane in each direction from Ming Avenue to Laurelglen Boulevard 1. ROW acquisition at the University Park Gated Community. Would remove existing landscaping on the southwest corner of Gosford Rd and Ming Avenue. Phase III (Year 2035) (62) Coffee Road s/o Stockdale Highway Add 1 Lane in each direction from Kroll Way to Stockdale Highway 1. Relocate 4 electrical boxes and 3 vaults on west side of Coffee Rd. Source: Ruettgers & Schuler, December 2009. 2. Potential Impacts Potential environmental impacts of Level 4 improvements were analyzed pursuant to the City’s adopted thresholds of significance under each impact area, which are the same thresholds of significance applied to the proposed Project’s potential on-site impacts in this Draft EIR. (1) Land Use Under the City’s adopted significance thresholds, impacts related to land use are significant if the project would physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact. Level 4 improvements would require City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-34 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 the demolition of significant numbers of commercial and residential buildings. For example, widening of Rosedale Highway east of Coffee Road (Street Segment #30) would require the removal of at least 11 existing buildings and businesses. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue along the impacted segments would require the removal of numerous multi-story office and residential buildings. Widening of Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) would require the demolition of 25 of private residences along the east side of Coffee Road. Widening of Coffee Road south of Stockdale (Street Segment #62) would require the demolition of 11 single family homes. Demolishing sizeable numbers of commercial and residential structures within existing commercial and residential communities would have a significant land use impact because it would physically disrupt and divide existing and established neighborhoods. No feasible mitigation measures could avoid or lessen this significant impact. Therefore, Level 4 improvements would have a significant and unavoidable impact on land use. Significantly impacting existing residential and commercial neighborhoods would also conflict with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The General Plan encourages existing residential neighborhoods to be retained (Land Use Policy 6) and sound residential neighborhoods and commercial districts to be preserved (Land Use Policy 82). Demolishing numerous commercial and residential buildings within existing residential neighborhoods and commercial districts conflicts with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, so Level 4 improvements would have a significant and unmitigable land use impact. (2) Biological Resources Level 4 improvements would be completed on existing roads or developed lands immediately adjacent to these roads, and would not occur within habitat for special status species. While many ornamental trees would be removed as part of the improvements, these trees are not protected under federal, state, or local regulations. Level 4 improvements, therefore, would not result in significant impacts to biological resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. (3) Geology, Mineral Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials Like Level 2 and Level 3 improvements, Level 4 improvements would not have a significant impact on geology, mineral resources or hazards under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. While much more extensive than the roadway improvements under Level 2 and Level 3, Level 4 improvements would still not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic or geologic hazards; involve substantial amounts of cut and fill; or construct structures that would be susceptible to damage from seismic events. Level 4 improvements also do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. Level 4 improvements only expand existing roadways over already developed land, so they would not cause the loss of mineral resources. Additionally, the proposed Project’s City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-35 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 mitigation measures would apply as applicable to ensure that any impact remained below each Cityadopted significance threshold. (4) Population and Housing, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems Level 4 improvements would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on population and housing and utilities. Under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance, a proposed project would have a significant impact on population and/or housing if, among other things, it would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and, therefore, necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Widening of Mohawk Street and California Avenue and Coffee Road north of Hageman Road (Street Segment #14) would require the demolition of at least 45 private residences. The demolition of these homes would result in a significant impact on population and housing because it would cause the displacement of dozens of existing residents and could require the development of housing elsewhere. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact to below the City’s adopted significance thresholds and, therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would remain if Level 4 improvements were implemented. Utilities would also be significantly impacted by Level 4 improvements. A significant impact on utilities would occur where substantial alteration or construction of facilities would cause significant environmental impacts and/or substantially reduce or constrain capacities of utility service providers. Level 4 improvements would require the demolition and replacement of at least 35 existing utility towers. Relocating such towers to previously undisturbed areas could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, if the utility towers were unable to be relocated, there could be a significant impact on the ability of utility companies to deliver services to their customers. As no mitigation measures have been identified that could reduce these impacts, a significant impact on utilities would remain as a result of implementing Level 4 improvements. Since the proposed improvements would not generate additional water demand, wastewater, or result in an increase in solid waste, the proposed improvements would not result in significant impacts on those impact areas. Level 4 improvements would not result in an increase in demand in police or fire protection, nor result in increased demand on public schools, the proposed improvements would not result in impacts to public services. As the proposed improvements would not result in access restrictions or increased demand on public parks, the proposed improvements would not result in impacts to public recreation. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-36 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 (5) Traffic and Emergency Access The Level 4 improvements would require temporary lane restrictions during various portions of the construction activities. At least one lane would be provided in each direction at all times. As required by Mitigation Measure C-57, the Project Applicant shall prepare construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the affected jurisdictions for all improvements. In accordance with the requirements of the construction management plan, any interruption to traffic flow, pedestrian movement, or parking would be minimized during construction. Therefore, potential off-site impacts related to traffic as a result of Level 4 improvements would be minimal and less than significant. The proposed Project’s construction traffic management plan would outline adequate measures to ensure emergency vehicle access during all aspects of Project construction, including, but not limited to, the use of flagmen during partial street closures. Thus, potential impacts from Level 4 improvements related to emergency access would be minimal and less than significant under the City’s thresholds of significance for traffic. Level 4 improvements could also have a significant impact on a pedestrian’s ability to access existing right-of-ways. In order to accommodate wider roadways, Level 4 improvements would require the removal of some existing sidewalks. Due to the roadway expansion, physical constraints would not allow for replacement of sidewalks and due to the number of private residences in the area, loss of existing sidewalks within the right-of-way would result in a potentially significant and unavoidable impact as no mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce this impact. (6) Noise a. Construction Level 4 improvements would result in construction noise similar to Level 2 and Level 3 improvements, because similar types of construction equipment are expected to be used. Table IV.K-8 sets forth these typical outdoor construction noise levels. These noise levels act in the same manner as the noise levels discussed above in Section I.B.1.5. However, given the proximity of the demolition activities to sensitive noise receptors, even though noise diminishes over distance at a high rate and construction activities would be temporary, construction noise impacts could be significant under the City’s adopted threshold of significance. While potential noise impacts would be reduced through compliance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code’s restrictions on construction activities within 1,000 feet of residential uses to between the hours of City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-37 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on weekends and Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3 would apply, these measures would not be sufficient to reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant and no other feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Operation Level 4 improvements would require the substantial expansion of existing roadways, resulting in two types of operation and noise impacts. First, since roadways would be brought closer to sensitive receptors, the noise at such sensitive receptors would incrementally increase. Second, Level 4 improvements would require the removal of existing buildings that buffer sensitive uses from roadway noise. The removal of these noise barriers would expose sensitive receptors to noticeable increases in their noise environment. Based on the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Noise Ordinance, a significant noise impact would result if existing residential land uses are exposed to transportation noise that exceeds the following thresholds: • Less than 60 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 5.0 dB or greater with the Project; • 60 to 65 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 3.0 dB or greater with the Project; or • Greater than 65 dB CNEL without the proposed Project and an increase of 1.5 dB or greater with the Project; As the removal of existing noise barriers could result in an increase in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by 5 to 10 dBA, the noise impact of these improvements would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. (7) Aesthetics Under the City’s adopted significance threshold for aesthetics, a significant aesthetic impact may occur if, among other things, a project introduces incompatible visual elements or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the surrounding area or introduces new sources of light or glare that would be incompatible with the areas surrounding the project site or which pose a safety hazard. Level 4 improvements would replace existing materials with those that are similar in form, color, and texture as those already in place. Thus, improvements would not introduce visual elements that would be City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-38 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 incompatible with the character of the area surrounding streets. However, while some street trees and landscaped medians would be maintained, most Level 4 improvements would require the removal of existing landscaping, reduction of grass parkway adjacent to roadways, planted medians and pedestrianfriendly sidewalks. Therefore, Level 4 improvements would result in a change to the visual character in the vicinity of the street segments and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to visual character in the vicinity of the street segments. Vehicle headlights are a source of light and glare on these road segments. Currently, the road segments are located farther from sensitive uses than they would be if Level 4 improvements were completed. Because Level 4 improvements require the demolition of existing buildings that currently buffer are located farther from sensitive uses than they would be if Level 4 improvements were completed. Because Level 4 improvements require the demolition of existing buildings that currently buffer sensitive uses from roadway light and glare, the roadways’ light and glare impacts would be increased. Additionally, pole-mounted lamps would be moved closer to sensitive uses as a result of the highway widening, though those lamps would be shielded from adjacent land uses and would be in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Because Level 4 improvements would expand existing sources of light and glare and increase sensitive uses’ exposure to the same, they could result in a significant and unavoidable impact on light and glare since no feasible mitigation measures have been identified. (8) Hydrology and Water Quality Level 4 improvements would have a similar impact on hydrology and water quality as the Level 2 and Level 3 improvements would. Therefore, with the mitigation measures cited above, above, Level 4 improvements would have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. (9) Air Quality a. Construction As with the Level 2 and 3 improvements, criteria pollutant emissions attributable to the Level 4 improvements were modeled for each construction phase to identify maximum daily emissions, and combined to quantify the total emissions from the individual roadway improvements. While it is anticipated that only one or two Level 4 roadway improvements would likely be under construction at the same time, in order to provide a very conservative analysis it is assumed that all Level 4 improvements would be under construction currently. Should all Level 4 improvements occur concurrently, emissions of all criteria pollutants, except as noted below, would result in a less than significant impact under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Concurrent construction of all Level 4 City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-39 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 improvements would result in a significant NOx impact in the first year of Phase I construction. In addition, under the two traffic scenarios which include additional green time along Rosedale Highway, significant ROG impacts in the same first year of Phase I construction and significant NOx impacts in the second year of Phase I construction would occur to the extent all Phase I traffic improvements would be under construction in the same calendar year. However, emission reductions necessary to reduce the aforementioned significant impacts to a less than significant level would occur via the project design feature that calls for the proposed emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Table VII-5 Estimated Maximum Total Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Individual Level 4 Roadway Improvement (tons/improvement) Emissions ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Phase I Improvements (Year 1) Without Project Design Features 0.29 1.29 2.20 Negligible 0.40 0.16 With Project Design Features a 0.29 1.29 0.51 Negligible 0.30 0.08 Phase II Improvements (2024) Without Project Design Features 0.12 0.83 0.70 Negligible 0.31 0.09 With Project Design Features a 0.12 0.83 0.16 Negligible 0.29 0.06 Phase III Improvements (2034) Without Project Design Features 0.12 0.82 0.64 Negligible 0.31 0.08 With Project Design Features a 0.12 0.82 0.15 Negligible 0.29 0.06 District Threshold 10 n/a 10 n/a 15 15 a Project design features include the use of the following emission reduction products: (1) engine control system – combfilter, and (2) extengine. Source: Matrix Environmental, December 2009. Impacts on localized air quality concentrations and toxic air contaminants would also be less than significant due to the anticipated quantity of construction equipment operating at each intersection and the physical separation of the improvements from one another. Additionally, potential construction air quality impacts would be reduced via the implementation of the proposed Project’s mitigation measures designed to mitigate air quality impacts, as applicable. Level 4 improvements could emit odors associated with painting new stripes on the roadways and from laying new/replacement asphalt. Any odors that occur would be short-lived (i.e., from a few days to a couple of weeks). District Rule 4102 also precludes the creation of odors that may be deemed a nuisance. As such, odors from the Level 3 improvements would be less than significant under the City’s adopted thresholds. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-40 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 The Level 4 improvements would result in the demolition of a number of existing structures. Demolition would comply with all District regulations including District Rule 4102, as noted above for nuisances, and Rule 4002 with respect to the potential release of toxic materials, specifically asbestos. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with demolition would be less than significant. Lastly, GHG emissions would be emitted during construction of the Level 4 improvements. Because of the limited construction period and limited use of construction equipment, impacts on GHG emissions would be minimized. Additionally, the proposed Project’s project design feature identified to address the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would apply to Level 4 improvements and would further reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. b. Operation Post-construction air quality impacts attributable to the Level 4 improvements, as is the case with the Level 2 and Level 3 improvements, would only occur in those instances when the roadway is brought notably closer to a sensitive receptor. The following five street segment improvements would meet this criterion: (1) Street Segment 14 (Coffee Road north of Hageman Road), (2) Street Segment 47 (Mohawk Street south of Truxtun Avenue), (3) Street Segment 62 (Coffee Road south of Stockdale Highway), (4) Street Segment 65 (California Avenue north of Stockdale Highway), and (5) Street Segment 77 (Gosford Road south of Ming Avenue). This decrease in distance between the roadway and residences would increase criteria pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors, but not to a sufficient enough level to result in a significant impact under the City’s adopted air quality significance thresholds. All other post-construction impacts (e.g., impacts resulting from higher traffic volumes) are related to the impacts of the Project itself and as such, are analyzed in Section IV.K, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR. Thus, operational air quality impacts for Level 4 improvements are less than significant. (10) Cultural Resources Level 4 improvements would have a similar potential impact on cultural resources as Level 2 and Level 3 because they also require ground-disturbing activities on land that has previously been disturbed by construction and development. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures J-1 and J-2 outlined in Section IV.J, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, Level 4 improvements would result in a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources under the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-41 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 3. Proposed Mitigation Measures Level 4 improvements would have significant impacts in the following impact areas: (i) land use; (ii) population and housing; (iii) utilities; (iv) noise; (iv) aesthetics; and (v) air quality. Because of the nature of the Level 4 improvements, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, except that the significant regional construction air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level via the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. 4. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts from Level 4 improvements on (i) land use, (ii) population and housing, (iii) utilities, (iv) noise, and (iv) aesthetics would be significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce all of the above-identified significant impacts to levels below the City’s adopted thresholds of significance. Impacts to regional air quality would be reduced to a less than significant level via the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. III. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Level 1 improvements would not result in any significant impacts to the environment and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Level 2 improvements would not result in any significant impacts to the environment with the exception of air quality. Air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Level 3 improvements would not result in any significant impacts to the environment with the exception of air quality. Air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through through the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. Level 4 improvements would have significant impacts in the following areas: (i) land use; (ii) population and housing; (iii) utilities; (iv) noise; (v) aesthetics; and (vi) air quality. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels with the exception of regional construction air quality emission. Air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the project design feature that calls for an emissions reduction agreement between the Applicant and the District. City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VII. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VII-42 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 This page intentionally left blank. Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR and Persons Consulted Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-1 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 VIII. PREPARERS OF THE EIR AND PERSONS CONSULTED PREPARERS OF THE EIR CEQA Lead Agency City of Bakersfield, Development Services Department – Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301-5210 (661) 326-3733 Jim Eggert, Planning Director Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner (Retired) Jameson Saberon, Associate Planner Kate Shea, Associate Planner Project Applicant Coffee-Brimhall LLC 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280-3896 Environmental Consultant Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 11849 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 101 Los Angeles, California, 90064 (310) 473-1600 Chris Joseph, Principal Terri McCracken, EIR Project Manager Amy Parravano, Senior Biologist Bryan Chen, Director, Air Quality Programs Terrance Wong, Senior Environmental Scientist Heidi Mekkelson, Senior Environmental Planner Patricia Preston, Environmental Planner Erin Kreitschitz, Environmental Planner Jasmine Patel, Environmental Planner Megan Marruffo, Assistant Environmental Planner Megan Steer, Assistant Environmental Planner Sherrie Cruz, Senior Graphics Specialist City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-2 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Technical Subconsultants Matrix Environmental 6701 Center Drive, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90045 (424) 207-5333 Bruce Lackow, President Applied Earthworks, Inc. 5090 North Fruit Avenue, Suite 101 Fresno, California 93711 (559) 229-1856 Jay B. Lloyd, Associate Archaeologist Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1120 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 683-0088 Sean Mohn, Principal Jonathan Chambers, Associate CBRE Richard Ellis 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700 San Fransisco, California 94111 (415) 781-8900 Amy Herman, Senior Managing Director Justin Bain Kleinfelder 1410 F Street Fresno, California 93706 (559) 486-0750 Jason Paul, Environmental Group Manager Christopher Johnson, Principal Hydrogeologist Richard Fink, Principal Geologist David Pearson, Principal Geotechnical Engineer Vicky Sims, Staff Geologist Kathlien Childers, Assistant Project Manager for the Environmental Group City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-3 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Lighting Design Studio, LLC 215 Pier Avenue, Suite B Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (661) 702-1599 John Decker, Principal PSOMAS 4540 California Avenue, Suite 110 Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 631-2311 John Vlassis Quad Knopf 5080 California Avenue, Suite 400 Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 616-2600 Miguel Barcenas, Civil Engineer PERSONS CONSULTED City of Bakersfield City of Bakersfield, Water Resources Department 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, California 93311 (661) 326-3715 Florn Core, Water Resources Manager (Retired) Stephen F. Choate, Supervisor II Mark Lambert, Superintendent City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department – Solid Waste Division 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 326-3114 Kevin Barnes, Director City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department – Wastewater Division 8101 Ashe Road Bakersfield, California 93313 (661) 326-3249 Art Chianello, Wastewater Manager City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-4 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 City of Bakersfield, Police Department 1601 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93302 (661) 327-7111 Bill Rector, Chief (Retired) Greg Williamson, Chief City of Bakersfield, Recreation and Parks Department 900 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 100 Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 326-3866 Greg Cronk, Director of Operations City of Bakersfield, Fire Department 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 401 Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 326-3911 Ron Fraze, Chief Kirk Blair, Deputy Fire Chief (Retired) Tyler Hartley, Deputy City Fire Chief City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 326-3724 Raul Rojas, Public Works Director City of Bakersfield, Public Works Department -Traffic Division 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 326-3000 Ryan Starbuck, Traffic Engineer Ed Murphy, Civil Engineer III Bruce Deeter, Civil Engineer III (Retired) City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-5 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Kern County Kern County, Waste Management Department 2700 M Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 862-8900 Daphne B. Harley, Director (Retired) Nancy L. Ewert, P.E., Engineering Manager Technical Resources Division Kern County, Fire Department & Office of Emergency Services 5642 Victor Street Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 391-7000 Mike Perry, Captain Benny F. Wofford, Assistant Fire Marshal Kern County, Administrative Office 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 868-3198 Adel C. Klein, Director of Policy Analysis Other Agencies Kern High School District 5801 Sundale Avenue Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 827-3100 Donald E. Carter, Superintendent Charles Rosengard, Manager, Research & Planning Kern County Superintendent of Schools 1300 17th Street Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 636-4000 Larry E. E. Reider, Superintendent (Retired) Christine Lizardi Frazier, Superintendent City of Bakersfield February 16, 2010 Bakersfield Commons Project VIII. Preparers Of The EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Page VIII-6 GPA/ZC# 06-1877 Fruitvale School District 7311 Rosedale Highway Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 589-3830 Dr. Carl F. Olsen, Superintendent North of the River Recreation and Park District 405 Galaxy Avenue Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000 David McArthur, General Manager Colon G. Bywater, Planning and Construction Director Southern California Gas Company 1510 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Andy Sanchez Louise Lankford, Pipeline Planning Assistant The Pacific Gas and Electric Company 4101 Wible Road Bakersfield, California 93301 Jerry Moore Tom Aguilar